gemli: "But there's a book written by the Moonmen! It tells an extraordinary tale that can't be verified, but, uh, well, um, I believe it! And so do lots of other people who coincidentally spread out from one isolated community. They spread the word, and now there are Moonmens all over the world! Surely that means the story is true!"
Nobody here makes an argument that is even remotely analogous to your caricature. I'm unaware, in fact, of anybody anywhere who makes such an argument.
Hmm. Arguing one is 'unaware' really doesn't help, does it?
gemli: "Even though the Marsmen believe in an entirely different story, along with scores of other this-men or that-men claims, it means that when lots of people believe different absurd tales it makes all of them credible!"
Nor is this recognizable.
No, it's not to a mopologist, because DCP's version is that only his story is credible.
gemli: "And don't ask for "proof." No only is it insulting, it's indicative of a closed mind that refuses to accept stories that are built on circular evidence."
If I've offered a "circular argument" at any point, you should demonstrate that. I deny having ever done so.
Oh my. Every time a mopologist starts by saying 'i start by assuming my religious claims are true,' (like Muhlestein, DCP, etc.,) they are making a circular argument. This is DCP being incredibly facetious.
Maybe....... he may not actually know what a circular argument is......
Oh my. Every time a mopologist starts by saying 'i start by assuming my religious claims are true,' (like Muhlestein, DCP, etc.,) they are making a circular argument. This is DCP being incredibly facetious.
Maybe....... he may not actually know what a circular argument is......
You have a point, Philo. One thing I've noticed is that some lds will excuse behavior in themselves that they will castigate in others. Why? Because they have "the truth," of course, and others don't. They know this because....they have the truth, and others don't. Circular reasoning is embedded in that thought process, so you're right, maybe they just can't see it.
DCP is losing this discussion about ockham's razor:
gemli DanielPeterson 9 minutes ago edited
Conjuring up supreme beings and angels that can't even be demonstrated to exist does not seem to be "simple" in any way but one. And it's not flattering.
So one could say in this case that Ockham's razors are disposable.
DCP is losing this discussion about ockham's razor
gemli DanielPeterson 9 minutes ago edited
Conjuring up supreme beings and angels that can't even be demonstrated to exist does not seem to be "simple" in any way but one. And it's not flattering.
So one could say in this case that Ockham's razors are disposable.
gemli: "Usually the one who's right is the one who makes the fewest improbable assumptions.""
If, as it seems, you're trying to restate Ockham's famous "razor," you've got it wrong.
A better way of putting it would be to say that, given the choice between two explanations, the simplest one that adequately accounts for the data is to be preferred.
gemli: "Conjuring up supreme beings and angels that can't even be demonstrated to exist does not seem to be "simple" in any way but one. And it's not flattering."
If you're ever interested in a substantive discussion, gemli, be sure to let us know.
gemli: "Excellent deflection, as usual."
It's no deflection. It's a polite way of saying that, until you're interested in discussing evidence and arguments, there's no point in spending hours on such exchanges as these. You've repeated your creed far more than enough for me to understand your viewpoint.
This is just embarrassing for Daniel. He really thinks Mormonism and theism in general fits Occam’s Razor. Any point Gemli makes, Dan immediately refutes, even if he just has to make an absurd assertion like that.
gemli: "Usually the one who's right is the one who makes the fewest improbable assumptions.""
If, as it seems, you're trying to restate Ockham's famous "razor," you've got it wrong.
A better way of putting it would be to say that, given the choice between two explanations, the simplest one that adequately accounts for the data is to be preferred.
gemli: "Conjuring up supreme beings and angels that can't even be demonstrated to exist does not seem to be "simple" in any way but one. And it's not flattering."
If you're ever interested in a substantive discussion, gemli, be sure to let us know.
gemli: "Excellent deflection, as usual."
It's no deflection. It's a polite way of saying that, until you're interested in discussing evidence and arguments, there's no point in spending hours on such exchanges as these. You've repeated your creed far more than enough for me to understand your viewpoint.
This is just embarrassing for Daniel. He really thinks Mormonism and theism in general fits Occam’s Razor. Any point Gemli makes, Dan immediately refutes, even if he just has to make an absurd assertion like that.
Yes, we all already have gotten that DCP gets Gemli's viewpoint. That is not the issue. Can you refute Gemli's viewpoint with evidence is what Gemli is asking of DCP, who does not do so. He sarcastically asserts things, but does he take on that viewpoint with a better evidenced viewpoint? Not that any of us has ever seen.
Even one as ignorantum obviousum as myself can see that if DCP simply showed Gemli some evidence as Gemli asks for, it would shut him up, or change his tune. But Peterson has nothing as Hamblin failed with Jenkins to produce. There just isn't anything. THAT is THE point to it all. This is what DCP does not want his audience to actually realize, to see it in their souls, to come to the full faced truth that they have been taken to the cleaners and been deceived.
This morning, as I was talking to man about a horse, well, it seemed like a good time to visit Sick and None to see what the hullabaloo was all about. After reading through the recursive exchanges I was reminded of ‘Don Qixote’, which I re-read, now for the fifth time, while laying in bed before my own personal giant struck, suddenly, and without e’en one cup of civet crap coffee in my system. Overall, gemli’s delightful eccentricity, and the interplay between his pragmatism and DCP’s imagination resonate with us, I suppose, like when Sancho would correct Dan Qixote. Oops! I meant Don Qixote.
Now, if I were to write a novel, it’d be about a little man named Dane who lives in the heart of a quaint little town called Provo, whose passion for food is rivaled only by his love for literature and classical music. And I suppose he fancies himself a gourmand, too, relishing in the exploration of culinary delights from around the world!
But Dane has a peculiar habit. As he indulges in his gastronomic adventures, he often regales his virtual companions on an obscure travel blog with tales of obscure books he claims to have read, dropping references to esoteric authors and philosophical musings. As he savors the flavors of meticulously crafted dishes, like a burger, Dane delights in recounting anecdotes from his latest imagined literary conquest, while occasionally boasting about his taste in classical music or the theater. Amidst the lively conversation in the comments section, Dane occasionally pauses to take a sip of his favorite indulgence: a glass of sparkling orange soda. With a satisfied smile, he declares, "Ah, the perfect accompaniment to the symphonies of Mozart, wouldn't you agree?"
His virtual guests chuckle indulgently at every turd he lays, delighted by Dane’s idiosyncrasies. For Dane, the blend of fine cuisine, obscure literature, classical melodies, and fizzy orange soda was nothing short of perfection—a symphony for the senses that he reveled in, unabashedly and unapologetically.
However, a snake lies in await.
In the vibrant tapestry of Dane’s comments section, there was one guest who added an unexpected twist to the symphony of flavors and conversation—Gembil, a sharp-witted individual with a penchant for pointing out Dane’s inaccuracies with a delightful flair for witty repartee.
As Dane waxed poetic about the origins of a particular dish or the Amazon summary of an obscure book, Gembil interjected with a mischievous grin, "Ah, Dane, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the true origin of that dish lies not in France, but in Italy. One of those obscure books you claim to have read might shed some light on the matter."
Dane’s brow furrows, a flicker of irritation crossing his face before he composes himself with practiced grace. "Ah, Gembil, always the contrarian! But I assure you, my dear friend, my sources are impeccable. And also, I traveled to Switzerland this Summer, so that makes me important!”
Gembil merely chuckles, taking a sip of his wine as he leaned back in his chair, seemingly unfazed by Dane’s thinly veiled annoyance.
Throughout the evenings, Gembil continues to challenge Dane’s assertions, each retort delivered with a razor-sharp wit that leaves Dane momentarily speechless. From correcting literary references to pointing out historical inaccuracies, Gembil dances circles around Dane’s carefully crafted narratives.
By the end of any exchange, Dane would find himself himself increasingly flustered, his composure slipping as Gembil’s playful banter chipped away at his self-assured facade. Soon enough, commenters would bid their farewells, one by one, as Dane gritted his teeth, vowing to outwit Gembil at their next encounter.
And so, amidst the elegant backdrop of culinary delights and classical melodies, a new dynamic emerged—one fueled by the delightful rivalry between Dane, the food-obsessed gourmand, and Gembil, the master of witty repartee.
That’s what I’d write if I chose to write a novel.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
