DiscussMormonism.com

"The Book of Mormon is not a true history. "

...

In another thread (here and on MADB), I took what I believe to be a commonsensical position re: Book of Mormon historicity: namely, that the proposition "the Book of Mormon is not true" cannot be proven true. This really irked antishock, so much so that he actually found it shameful on my part. Of course, he also seems to believe I'm a LDS apologist who uses philosophy to escape from logic and sound reasoning (!).

antishock stated in that other thread, in quite unequivocal language, that negative propositions can be proven true (something I'd already allowed in the first place). He found my distinction between historico-textual propositions and mathematical propositions to be more than a bit silly:

""You cannot prove a historico-textual proposition false.", is the newly redefined argument designed to undermine the reality of proving a negative. Notice the nonsensical hyphenated compound word created just for this purpose. Clever? No, but it does play to the apologists in the audience looking for anything that can bolster their faith. So, in that sense, it works...

...

antishock--

Since you find it unnecessary to distinguish between types of negative propositions vis-a-vis the ability to demonstrate their respective truth values, and since (I assume) you believe that all true negative propositions can be demonstrated to be so, would you demonstrate the truth of the proposition, "the Book of Mormon is not a true history?"

I'll say, right up front, that I don't think you can, but I also admit that I could be wrong in this particular instance and wrong, more generally, about one's ability to prove negative historical propositions.

That said, I hope you can do it. As I am a staunch disbeliever in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, you just might provide me with a useful answer to LDS (on MADB, for example) who tell critics it is their responsibility to prove Book of Mormon false, rather than the other way 'round.

Here's hoping...

Chris

cksalmon wrote:

antishock8 wrote:I love how, in an effort to keep the possibility of the impossible alive, an apologist just ups and redefines the argument. Shameful.

There is no doubt you can prove a negative. Period. Saying, "You cannot prove a negative." is a non-starter. Since that proposition is clearly demonstrated to be of no use to the apologist now, it's imperative he finds a new avenue to advance his silliness.

"You cannot prove a historico-textual proposition false.", is the newly redefined argument designed to undermine the reality of proving a negative. Notice the nonsensical hyphenated compound word created just for this purpose. Clever? No, but it does play to the apologists in the audience looking for anything that can bolster their faith. So, in that sense, it works...

The apologist then quickly moves the discussion into the arena of philosophy since emprical evidence isn't useful. This is his only recourse, his refuge from sound logic and reason, that continues to allow him to even participate in this discussion. The issue quickly becomes clouded, which is the intent, and the apologists' faith is preserved since nonsense equals confirmation bias in their case.

I love how, in an effort to be righteously indignant at the shameful ignorance of others, confirmation bias dictates that you mistake a nevermo for an LDS apologist. That's rich, but I appreciate the chuckle. I especially liked your assertion that "philosophy" is "my refuge from sound logic and reasoning." That statement is a lot of fun, though I'm not sure you intended it to be.

Of course one can prove some negative propositions.

Would you be so kind as to logically demonstrate the truth of the proposition "The Book of Mormon is not a true history." Should be easy, no? I'll start a special thread for the demonstration.

Chris

There was a reason why I assigned you the term "apologist" versus your assertion of "LDS apologist". I really don't know you well enough to know who or what you are/believe, but in this thread you've clearly taken the role of apologist.



That being said, before I can give you an honest answer I need to know your definition of "proof" or "prove". I don't really want a lot of wiggle room for either of us, so I'm letting you set the parameters of your expectations first.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+prove

Well, antishock, as painfully obvious as it is to most of us that the Book of Mormon isn't true, we can't "prove" that it isn't.

Scottie wrote:Well, antishock, as painfully obvious as it is to most of us that the Book of Mormon isn't true, we can't "prove" that it isn't.

Well, it's my opinion that it's already been proven false, or "not true". But I'm kind of waiting on CK to provide some parameters reference "proof" or "prove".

antishock8 wrote:

Scottie wrote:Well, antishock, as painfully obvious as it is to most of us that the Book of Mormon isn't true, we can't "prove" that it isn't.

Well, it's my opinion that it's already been proven false, or "not true". But I'm kind of waiting on CK to provide some parameters reference "proof" or "prove".

Since you have deemed it proven false, how are you defining "proved"?

antishock8 wrote:There was a reason why I assigned you the term "apologist" versus your assertion of "LDS apologist". I really don't know you well enough to know who or what you are/believe, but in this thread you've clearly taken the role of apologist.

My interest in this issue is not at all apologetic in nature, nor is my interest feigned. I just happen to like thinking about thinking and figuring out how to do it better.

antishock8 wrote:That being said, before I can give you an honest answer I need to know your definition of "proof" or "prove". I don't really want a lot of wiggle room for either of us, so I'm letting you set the parameters of your expectations first.

By "prove," I mean:
Construct an argument consisting of unambiguous and true premises the conclusion of which ("the Book of Mormon is not a true history") is necessarily entailed.

Now, let me say that that's a ridiculously, even fallaciously, high bar to set. Personally, I think the very request evinces a misunderstanding of the nature of propositions of history, which was my point, in part, in the other thread. It's the same misunderstanding that some LDS evince when they demand that the critic must "prove the Book of Mormon false."

But, there it is.

Chris

Scottie wrote:

antishock8 wrote:

Scottie wrote:Well, antishock, as painfully obvious as it is to most of us that the Book of Mormon isn't true, we can't "prove" that it isn't.

Well, it's my opinion that it's already been proven false, or "not true". But I'm kind of waiting on CK to provide some parameters reference "proof" or "prove".

Since you have deemed it proven false, how are you defining "proved"?

Well, luckily the Book of Mormon isn't so complicated that only a handful of people can truly understand the historicity, religion, and origins behind it (like some apologists might have us believe). I suppose if one wants to argue the standards of proof, or even what "proof" is then we'd have to get that out of the way first. Whether or not two people could come to a satisfactory agreement on the definition of "proof"/"prove" is most likely the sticking point when arguing the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

That being said, for me "proof"/"prove" follows:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+proof

A term from logic... describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles.

And if that's too broadly defined, or allows for too much argument over the notion of logic:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X ... ve&spell=1

Establish the validity of something... by an example, explanation or experiment.

-------

At this point the apologist mind goes into overdrive thinking of ways to subvert the meaning of words or examples of proof rather than focusing on the establishment of validity (in the scientific sense). I'm not sure the apologist is generally interested in validity and reliability since those principles are anathema to their dogma most of the time.

cksalmon wrote:

antishock8 wrote:There was a reason why I assigned you the term "apologist" versus your assertion of "LDS apologist". I really don't know you well enough to know who or what you are/believe, but in this thread you've clearly taken the role of apologist.

My interest in this issue is not at all apologetic in nature, nor is my interest feigned. I just happen to like thinking about thinking and figuring out how to do it better.

antishock8 wrote:That being said, before I can give you an honest answer I need to know your definition of "proof" or "prove". I don't really want a lot of wiggle room for either of us, so I'm letting you set the parameters of your expectations first.

By "prove," I mean:
Construct an argument consisting of unambiguous and true premises the conclusion of which ("the Book of Mormon is not a true history") is necessarily entailed.

Now, let me say that that's a ridiculously, even fallaciously, high bar to set. Personally, I think the very request evinces a misunderstanding of the nature of propositions of history, which was my point, in part, in the other thread. It's the same misunderstanding that some LDS evince when they demand that the critic must "prove the Book of Mormon false."

But, there it is.

Chris

I'll come back to this in a bit, and decide whether or not I want to take a poke at it. Gonna go get lunch first...

cksalmon wrote:By "prove," I mean:

Construct an argument consisting of unambiguous and true premises the conclusion of which ("the Book of Mormon is not a true history") is necessarily entailed.

I'm going to take a poke at your premise based on the Jaredite Barges story.

All right.

We have:

- 8 small (up to the length of a tree, whatever kind of tree that may be), light-weight, ocean faring vessels that are part boat and part submarine

Here's a painting of the kinds of barges Joseph Smith would have seen and known:

[/img]http://www.nevillgallery.com/davidnapp/normalsize/dn16.jpg[img]

Here's a woodcut (?) of an Eerie canal barge Mr. Smith would have observed on many an occasion:

[/img]http://www.uh.edu/engines/erieboat.jpg[img]

As you can see the description of the barges in Ether fit nicely with these images circa Mr. Smith's time. The changes to the vessels would have been such that they are completely sealed, airtight, top, sides, and bottom; the barges would then have to be incredibly strong to withstand the strains of the ocean, both above and below the surface: waves, wind, torque, inversion*, pressure, and maybe a sea creature or two.

The barge is specifically designed to invert for whatever reason.

- 344 days of uninterrupted sea travel

- No ability to navigate *no sails, submarine, dependent on the elements for propulsion

- Numbers aren't provided, but each "small" and "light" barge the "size of a tree" must hold all provisions, flocks and herds, feed, people, water, human and animal waste, and breathable air

- Numbers in Jaredite party: Jared and his brother, and their families, and also the friends of Jared and his brother and their families

- Stones, touched by a god, illuminate, to whatever degree, the interior of the barges

-------- So, in short, we have the above-listed premise as being stated by the Book of Mormon. If, given the information we have above can be proven to be false, then the Book of Mormon is not true. Any issues? Addendums?