William Schryver: Apologist from Krypton

[_Pa Pa]

Hello,

The key for Mopologists reference the KEP is to distance the material from the Book of Abraham, and to introduce, a la Mr. Nibley, a tone of confusion into the process of "understanding what they really mean". What is of utmost importance for the Mopologists is to get away from this:

A TRANSLATION OF SOME ANCIENT RECORDS, THAT HAVE FALLEN INTO OUR HANDS FROM THE CATECOMBS OF EGYPT, PURPORTING TO BE THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM WHILE HE WAS IN EGYPT, CALLED THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM, WRITTEN BY HIS OWN HAND, UPON PAPYRUS.

Mr. William "Gookie Cookie" Schryver understands the KEP are damning evidence of Mr. Smith & his cohorts inability to translate Egyptian, thus invalidating the Book of Abraham. If he can spin the KEP by 1) divorcing Mr. Smith from them, and 2) reinventing the KEP as something unassociated with the Book of Abraham he will have done something truly impressive.

That said, it will be interesting to watch the Mormon church's reaction, if it has any. Had Grant Heward just lived 50 years later...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Why not wait and see instead of "poisoning the well"? Silly me, I know the answer to that.

[_Spider-to-the-Fly]

Mr. Graham,

You wrote

I am completely fascinated by the hype that has been stirred about Schryver's upcoming presentation. I mean who has ever seen anything like this before? At MADB people like Greg Smith said the presentation was shown beforehand because Schryver simply wanted feedback. That sounded reasonable enough, but then today I find out that FAIR apologists were not the only ones who previewed it. The LDS media was called in and they've been hyping it further, clearly to drive in more revenue for FAIR. ($80 a pop for a 2-day conference is nothing to sneeze at!)

This entire matter might be more about getting the LDS media to synthesize their reporting of the presentation that it is a coup in the debates about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Doing this before the presentation is made to the public at FAIR gives the Mormon masses a comfort so that they can bypass having to actually endure the presentation at any point in time and can rest assured that the LDS media has told them "all is well, all is well." No need to look into what might be coming from Messrs. Brent Metcalfe or Chris Smith, for example, that could be faith-shaking. This firewall approach will keep many Mormons that might otherwise have looked from doing so.

In sum, the presentation might be the least of this process, or signal when the real meat of it has ended. When the presentation is actually given, the real 'show' will have already ended. Those of the sheep with their heads up and beginning to baaa a bit about the Book of Abraham, may put their heads back down and go back to chewing on grass. "All is well, all is well."

Regards,

Spider.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why not wait and see instead of "poisoning the well"? Silly me, I know the answer to that.

Hello,

I think a little conjecture is entertaining. That said, what is the answer to your own conjecture, Sir?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Pa Pa]

Why not wait and see instead of "poisoning the well"? Silly me, I know the answer to that.

Hello,

I think a little conjecture is entertaining. That said, what is the answer to your own conjecture, Sir?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

My point is simple…having not seen, heard or read the presentation, I have not made up my mind concerning anything. In short I have no conjecture as of yet.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

My point is simple…having not seen, heard or read the presentation, I have not made up my mind concerning anything. In short I have no conjecture as of yet.

Sir,

I was referencing your conjecture, as in, I'm "poisoning the well". If anyone is guilty of engaging in that particular logical fallacy it is Mr. William "Gookie Cookie" Schrver himself! Not only has he prepped the battlefield in order to win the hearts and minds of adherents, the adherents themselves have already predetermined victory from a presentation they had not seen.

My conjecture is just that... Conjecture. I'm musing, but not saying that he won't be successful or entertaining because I simply don't know what he's talking about other than what he said he would be attempting to do.

Please don't lecture a professor about logical fallacies, Sir. It's insulting.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_wenglund]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that any of the four Gospels would meet the foundational requirements for admissibility as evidence in court (assuming that a court had jurisdiction to decide if the resurrection really happened).

No. Of course not. I can't think of any ground for bringing anyone from the gospel to trial today. CAn you? What I am suggesting is that eyewitness testimony is admissable in court as well as various other area of life. It is valid evidence, generally speaking.

If you are not suggesting this, then there is no reason for you to refer to eyewitness testimony being admissible.

There is if my intent was to show that eyewitness testimonies are generally accepted as evidence (including in courts of law), and thus ought not to be dismissed in the case of scripture. And, as explained above, that was my intent.

And you also haven't mentioned that evidence that is admitted is evidence that is subject to impeachment.

Correct. There were a number of aspects of the rules of evidence in jurisprudence that I didn't mention for want of relevance to the minor point I was making.

Just so you know, if you want to take your analogy where it logically leads.

That isn't where it logically leads.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

Wade -

Perhaps if you gave us an account of what it means for something to be evidence of a theory it'd be easier to approach what you are saying. On some accounts of evidence what you are talking about would count as such, on others it wouldn't.

Let me ask you a quick hypothetical.

Suppose I published a book that detailed the history of a superintelligent race of reptellian like people that once ruled the earth. In that book, I explain they got their power from the moon.

Suppose further there are a group of people committed to the proposition that my book details actual history and there is another group who thinks it is fictional.

Would the fact that we know the moon exists be evidence of the book being actual history?

Or if you want to continue with the trial analogy:

Suppose my friend is on trial for murder. I testify in his defense that he has a good alibi. You see, he was with me when the murder was committed. We were transported to the planet klepton where we drank gin and bunzzleberry juice for a few others with some members of the intergalactic council of planets.

Is my testimony evidence, however minor, of his innocence?

[_wenglund]

Not a problem, but you might try to limit the Ad hominem so as to facilitate better discussion.

Good point.

We have many modern statements from probably many 10,000's of people who say Christ has visited them. I wouldn't say it's not evidence, but it's not very good evidence, and they should get the same treatment as those millions who have witnessed aliens and such.

Agreed.

It's no better then the evidence for other deities, aliens and such from so many other groups and individuals. The experiences are generally the same, and should give one pause about the accuracy of any interpretations they give to them, so I'm skeptical of that this would constitute good evidence. I would consider beliefs based on these experiences including my own as blind faith.

We each get to decide, according to our respective paradigms, what weight to give each piece of evidence. Some may reasonably weigh evidence for the existence of Christ heavier than they may way evidence for alien appearances, etc. and vice versa. And, we each get to subjectively decide whatall to include in the set of "blind faith". Clearly, you and I weight the evidence differently and define "blind faith" differently, and that is okay. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Pa Pa]

My point is simple…having not seen, heard or read the presentation, I have not made up my mind concerning anything. In short I have no conjecture as of yet.

Sir,

I was referencing your conjecture, as in, I'm "poisoning the well". If anyone is guilty of engaging in that particular logical fallacy it is Mr. William "Gookie Cookie" Schrver himself! Not only has he prepped the battlefield in order to win the hearts and minds of adherents, the adherents themselves have already predetermined victory from a presentation they had not seen.

My conjecture is just that... Conjecture. I'm musing, but not saying that he won't be successful or entertaining because I simply don't know what he's talking about other than what he said he would be attempting to do.

Please don't lecture a professor about logical fallacies, Sir. It's insulting.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I used your post to address all…Graham and all the rest. Or is calling someone a dumb-ass not poisoning the well?

[_wenglund]

Wade -

Perhaps if you gave us an account of what it means for something to be evidence of a theory it'd be easier to approach what you are saying.

I think we all have a generally agreable idea of what constitutes evidence.

However, where problems arise, as intimated above, is in cases of paradigm clashes. In specific instances, and because of our respective paradigms, what may qualify as evidence to me, may not qualify as evidence to you, and the weight that I may give the evidence may not be the weight that you give it. And that's okay.

The problem, though, is during inter-paradigm discussion, people make assertions about other paradigms that apply to the paradigm of the person making the assertion, but not to the paradigm of the person to whom the assertion is being made. And this doesn't work for the person to whom the assertion is being made.

The solution that I have found to this problem, is when speaking to people of other paradigms, speak to them in terms of their paradigm, and not just my own.

With that in mind, let me take a look at your hypothetical.

Suppose I published a book that detailed the history of a superintelligent race of reptellian like people that once ruled the earth. In that book, I explain they got their power from the moon.

Suppose further there are a group of people committed to the proposition that my book details actual history and there is another group who thinks it is fictional.

Would the fact that we know the moon exists be evidence of the book being actual history?

It wouldn't be to me, but it may be to the group committed to the proposition above. So, if I am in discussion with that group, I may say that according to how I account for things, I don't view the existence of the moon as evidence of the books history, but I can respect if those in the group do. And, I would hope that those in the group would treat my position with equal respect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-