My Life Was Saved by the Book of Mormon! A Philosophy Problem.

[_Gadianton]

Bond, strip everything about LDS out of the scenario. Try going with a Pink book and a Blue book. Try that. :) It has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon being holy -- I think? Pretty sure about that. Has to do with which saved the man. Put in anything else of a protective nature and strip out the drama and see which saved the man.

Well if it wouldn't matter whether it was a pink or blue book...I'd just be lucky to have been saved by the book. I'm sure most people would feel the same. The question only gets deeper when God is tossed into the issue via scriptures as a live saver.

Is God important to determining which book saved the man?

Okay, answer this bond, You're in a tank and a bullet is shot at you by a sniper. The tank protects you. The second time the sniper shoots the bullet hits a piece of wood on the outside of the tank and deflects the bullet. So, which saved you, the tank or the wood? No God or LDS in that scenario.

Sticking to the point, thaaat's right: for me, in the case of the flimsey piece of wood, it's hard to say ones life was ever in danger. I mean, does gravity and the curvature of the earth "save your life" every time a duck hunter in south carolina fires a 10 guage with three inch mags when you're living in California? There's going to be some semantics involved then. But, for examples not so extreme, I think isolating the element of overdetermination is key.

I think REnegade brought up an example of parachutes. The only problem I have with that is the 2nd tier safety mechanism isn't in the snapshot of time guranteed to contribute. It could fail too. Then again, the tank could just melt away at an in opportune moment.

[_Ren]

I think REnegade brought up an example of parachutes.. The only problem I have with that is the 2nd tier safety mechanism isn't in the snapshot of time guranteed to contribute.

...so the parachutist was opening his main chute dangerously close to the ground?
...they'd deserve everything they get :D

It could fail too.

Yes! I think that's the 'real' point.
If you had a back-up mechanism that was SO much more reliable than the main chute that you may as well say it will 'never' fail, then when you opened your main chute and landed on the ground, would you make the proclamation 'My main chute 'saved me'...?

...why would you say this when you were never in any real danger at all?

[_Moniker]

Can't this be re-framed as:

'If I jump out of a plane, open up my parachute and land safely on the ground - was it the main chute that stopped me crashing to the ground and dying....?'
...what about my safety chute?

I'd have trouble considering myself sane if I said it was my 'safety chute' that stopped me splatting like an omlette. So - I'm going with the Book of Mormon saved them!

Why do you go with the Book of Mormon saved the man? The Bible replaced the Book of Mormon as the intial layer of protection. Right? I just don't get the parachute analogy -- it just seriously doesn't work for me. You would need two jumps and what appeared to save you would have to be something other than the main chute, correct?

I do not like your analogy! I keep typing up the chute scenario to get it to fit for me, and it's just not working.

Can you explain to me, framed within the Book of Mormon and Bible framework why you think the Book of Mormon saved the man? Or use the tank and wood scenario for me?

If you're saying that you determine what saved you by the INITIAL safety (the tank or the Bible in the second instance) wouldn't you think that the Bible was what was essentially saved the man since the Book of Mormon was just an added layer but was not necessary? The Bible WOULD have saved the man if NOT for the Book of Mormon being there in the second instance. I'm confused! :)

Or you're saying that the safety chute was never deployed (your safety chute is the Bible in this instance?) and since it was not used that the only thing actually used which was the main chute (the Book of Mormon in this instance) is what saved your life? Why do you have to be so difficult!?

[_Ren]

Why do you have to be so difficult!?

...not trying to be - honest.
Or - God made me this way. Blame him! :D

The Bible replaced the Book of Mormon as the intial layer of protection. Right?

Ahh -I think we might be thinking different things when we say 'initial'.
When I say 'initial', I mean the first thing that could possibly stop the 'bad thing' happening. In the senario that Gad proposed, the Bible was placed behind the Book of Mormon. So I would call the Book of Mormon the 'initial' layer of protection, in that that the bullet would have to go through the Book of Mormon first before the Bible could have anything to with protecting the guy.

You see what I mean?

OK - here's how I see it. 3 possible scenarios. (Bear in mind what I mean when I say 'first')

1. The first layer of protection is substantially superior to the second layer. (Think guy wearing armour inside a tank)
My conclusion: Whichever layer actually works in that instance 'saved'. (Probably gonna be the first, but you never know...)

2. The first layer is not that different to the second layer, in terms of 'protection'. (Think Book of Mormon and Bible, or main and backup chutes).
My conclusion: Whichever layer actually works in that instance 'saved'. (First or second and even whether one protects a little bit more than the other is all irrelavent. It's whichever works).

3. The first layer is substantially inferior to the second layer. (Think flimsy piece of wood in front of a tank).
My conclusion: The first layer didn't 'save', because it was pretty much irrelevant.

I just don't get the parachute analogy -- it just seriously doesn't work for me. You would need two jumps and what appeared to save you would have to be something other than the main chute, correct?

Hmmm? No - you wouldn't need two jumps. I'm only talking about a single jump. If the main chute fails to open (read: 'The bullet goes through the Book of Mormon), then you still have a second 'point of protection', the backup chute. (read: The bullet now hits the Bible, which might also stop it).

I do not like your analogy!

Ermm, I'd prefer it if you liked everything I said in future please. Thanks! :D

[_Gadianton]

I'll return to this later but for now...

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/ ... shadow.htm

here's the real deal. note that noting "shadows aren't real things" won't be enough.

[_Ren]

here's the real deal. note that noting "shadows aren't real things" won't be enough.

Hmm. So I guess 'disputing' axiom 3 would count as arguing that 'shadows aren't real things' - right?
I'd say it's true that "Shadows don't pass through opaque objects", but only in the sense that shadows don't pass through 'anything'...?

Am I way off?

[_Gadianton]

The "shadow" formulation is appealing because there is such a clean intuitive link between the cause and the effect, the shadow. I don't think it's wrong to say that a shadow isn't a real thing, but, I think it would be a pitfall to think by merely noting that alone that the problem is solved.

The very first thing I did too was go for axiom 3 since it doesn't really seem to make sense that shadows "pass through" anything. Then again, if we're being consistent and living with casual definitions, it's intuitive that they do. If you are sitting in a living room with a big window, and there is a tree outside, the shadow seems to pass through the window. Certainly, the bahavior of light seems different than if there is a brick wall there.

Anyway, the pseudo-thing nature of a shadow is seductive and will lead you to believe that if we can just get more scientific about it and frame everything in positive properties of light and so on, then we don't need to worry about the physics of a pseudo-thing. But as I explored that route, I came to believe that it was a dead end, and that tightening up definitions doesn't solve the problem. That would seem to be key to the exercise. Further, I came to believe that on the grounds of precision, I could find fault with any of the axioms, not just 3 which seems to stick out more than the others.

Compare "being in the shade" to "being protected by the Book of Mormon", we might even say that our vital organ, the heart, is in the shade of the Book of Mormon. We might say that opacity finds an analog to the length of the book. We can avoid some of the language weirdness by saying that being in the shade iff an opaque object between you and the light source and thus getting around having to talk about a shadow as a thing and defering to a special property of object C --- the property of being "in the shade" as contingent upon the physical property of the object coming into contact with photons. Which doesn't seem controversial at all. But then again, it also doesn't fix anything. ;)

more later.

[_Moniker]

You know what I like about this problem? I enjoy that even great philosophical minds still have no solution for it. :)

It just appears that I should be able to look at these problems (shadows or BoMs) and use real world notions to come up with an answer. Anyway. This was fun in a kooky, maddening way. :)

Is it dead? I guess so.

[_ludwigm]

I like more the "other" type problems so I have a parachute joke instead.

The beginner was taught before his first jump:
- Count three then pull the trigger of the main parachute.
- If anything fails, count again then pull the another trigger for the backup one.
- After landing, there will be a car to bring you back here.

The novice jumps, counts, pulls - nothing.
Another counting, another pulling - nothing.
He thinks: "As the things are going today, there will be no car!"