For antishock: Demonstrate the truth of this proposition...

[_beastie]

This is a purely philosophical exercise. It is reasonable and logical to conclude that the preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates that the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a factual history is zero. Therefore, using languages as we normally do, it is reasonable and logical to state that the Book of Mormon has been proven to be "not true" in terms of being a factual history. When believers engage in this sort of philosophical exercise/defense, they're blowing smoke.

To use an example believers detest (too close to the mark, I suppose), under this philosophical exercise, I may not be able to prove that an invisible pink unicorn isn't circling the planet earth, either. But I can certainly demonstrate that the preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates that the likelihood of such a scenario is zero. Therefore, one can justify saying "it's been proven there is no invisible pink unicorn circling the planet earth."

I understand chris is just exploring this as a philosophical issue, but when apologists use this line of defense, they're grasping at straws.

[_Trevor]

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.

Since the precise definition of "true" is always changing with regard to the Book of Mormon, we never will be able to.

[_Scottie]

This is a purely philosophical exercise. It is reasonable and logical to conclude that the preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates that the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a factual history is zero. Therefore, using languages as we normally do, it is reasonable and logical to state that the Book of Mormon has been proven to be "not true" in terms of being a factual history. When believers engage in this sort of philosophical exercise/defense, they're blowing smoke.

To use an example believers detest (too close to the mark, I suppose), under this philosophical exercise, I may not be able to prove that an invisible pink unicorn isn't circling the planet earth, either. But I can certainly demonstrate that the preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates that the likelihood of such a scenario is zero. Therefore, one can justify saying "it's been proven there is no invisible pink unicorn circling the planet earth."

I understand chris is just exploring this as a philosophical issue, but when apologists use this line of defense, they're grasping at straws.

Or, prove to me that Scientology isn't true. Or JW's. Or any other sect.

Since TBM's can't prove that any of these other religions are false, why not follow them?

[_antishock8]

Ok. So here's my first attempt to "prove" the Book of Mormon is not a true history via the Jaredite story. Rather than focus on all aspects of the story I just want to focus on one aspect until you demonstrate to me that I'm using erroneous logic. Yeah? Ok.

Here goes nothing:

8 barges

No navigation

Completely sealed, top and bottom, until a hole is opened to let air in the living space.

My assertion:

It is a mathematical impossibility that 8 barges as described in the Book of Ether, could be released at the same point, at the same time, and arrive across any large sea/ocean and arrive at the same point, 344 days later, having been driven by winds and ocean currents. Nothing more.

It is, literally, impossible.

Therefore the Book of Mormon is not a true history.

[_christopher]

My assertion:

It is a mathematical impossibility that 8 barges as described in the Book of Ether, could be released at the same point, at the same time, and arrive across any large sea/ocean and arrive at the same point, 344 days later, having been driven by winds and ocean currents. Nothing more.

It is, literally, impossible.

Therefore the Book of Mormon is not a true history.

If one is willing to believe in God, then believing (or even stating) that they know it is true that God kept the barges together is really quite minor or simple and not impossible. It can though, be proven no more or less than a resurrected Jesus.

[_antishock8]

My assertion:

It is a mathematical impossibility that 8 barges as described in the Book of Ether, could be released at the same point, at the same time, and arrive across any large sea/ocean and arrive at the same point, 344 days later, having been driven by winds and ocean currents. Nothing more.

It is, literally, impossible.

Therefore the Book of Mormon is not a true history.

If one is willing to believe in God, then believing (or even stating) that they know it is true that God kept the barges together is really quite minor or simple and not impossible. It can though, be proven no more or less than a resurrected Jesus.

I understand the deus ex machina point you made earlier, but I'm specifically talking about whether or not the Book of Mormon is a true history, and I'm making a negative assertion. This goes back to the thread where CK says you can't prove a negative. I'm asserting you can. I'm saying the Book of Mormon is not a true history because in this instance the Jaredite barges arriving at the same location by means described in the Book of Ether is a mathematical impossibility.

[_Scottie]

I understand the deus ex machina point you made earlier, but I'm specifically talking about whether or not the Book of Mormon is a true history, and I'm making a negative assertion. This goes back to the thread where CK says you can't prove a negative. I'm asserting you can. I'm saying the Book of Mormon is not a true history because in this instance the Jaredite barges arriving at the same location by means described in the Book of Ether is a mathematical impossibility.

I'm sorry, but you can't just take God out of the Book of Mormon.

To the believing member, it is entirely plausible that God modified the winds and the ocean currents to lead them safely to the new world.

I know you want to only use what the text says, but this is a holy book! It is scripture. Of COURSE God is going to be performing miracles.

[_antishock8]

I understand the deus ex machina point you made earlier, but I'm specifically talking about whether or not the Book of Mormon is a true history, and I'm making a negative assertion. This goes back to the thread where CK says you can't prove a negative. I'm asserting you can. I'm saying the Book of Mormon is not a true history because in this instance the Jaredite barges arriving at the same location by means described in the Book of Ether is a mathematical impossibility.

I'm sorry, but you can't just take God out of the Book of Mormon.

To the believing member, it is entirely plausible that God modified the winds and the ocean currents to lead them safely to the new world.

I know you want to only use what the text says, but this is a holy book! It is scripture. Of COURSE God is going to be performing miracles.

If that's the case, then there isn't anything in the machine, so to speak, that God can't or didn't do. In other words, the implausibility of 8 barges leaving one point, going across the seas/oceans to arrive at the same exact location, in the manner the Book of Ether describes, is so great that ANY apologist argument, ANY excuse a believer makes, ANY wild supposition has equal validity.

That being said, I'm simply basing my position off of this challenge made by CK:

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.

Based of his statement, I believe my position is pretty solid.

--------------------

If it ever occurs to anyone like a Mr. Peterson, who actually has a place in academia and risks his reputation when creating apologia, how dishonest or fanciful one has to be in order to promote apologetics, then they do so as willing abettors. You literally have to make the conscious decision to be a con man, a snake oil saleman, a liar. It's unfortunate because one can think one is just pursuing a hobby, but the apologist is also sedating others with misinformation. In their minds I suppose the logical outcome of abandoning apologetics is concession...

[_Scottie]

If that's the case, then there isn't anything in the machine, so to speak, that God can't or didn't do. In other words, the implausibility of 8 barges leaving one point, going across the seas/oceans to arrive at the same exact location, in the manner the Book of Ether describes, is so great that ANY apologist argument, ANY excuse a believer makes, ANY wild supposition has equal validity.

That being said, I'm simply basing my position off of this challenge made by CK:

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.

Based of his statement, I believe my position is pretty solid.

Ok, I see what you were doing. And I agree, for sure, based on nothing but the text, you're right. It's CLEARLY a fraud and the Jarodite barges prove that.

But this is why religion is next to impossible to prove wrong. Once you prove it wrong using logic, the believer will immediately resort to "God can do anything" or "I have a firm testimony, so it doesn't matter." That was certainly my mindset as a believer.

If it ever occurs to anyone like a Mr. Peterson, who actually has a place in academia and risks his reputation when creating apologia, how dishonest or fanciful one has to be in order to promote apologetics, then they do so as willing abettors. You literally have to make the conscious decision to be a con man, a snake oil saleman, a liar. It's unfortunate because one can think one is just pursuing a hobby, but the apologist is also sedating others with misinformation. In their minds I suppose the logical outcome of abandoning apologetics is concession...

I really have to wonder about these apologists.

There are some apologists like Hammer and BC that are just so far ingrained that their brains actually make it true for them.

But then there other intellectuals like DCP where I honestly cannot see how he looks at all the data and still concludes from a factual point of view (not spiritual) that the church is true.

[_cksalmon]

Ok. So here's my first attempt to "prove" the Book of Mormon is not a true history via the Jaredite story. Rather than focus on all aspects of the story I just want to focus on one aspect until you demonstrate to me that I'm using erroneous logic. Yeah? Ok.

Here goes nothing:

8 barges

No navigation

Completely sealed, top and bottom, until a hole is opened to let air in the living space.

My assertion:

It is a mathematical impossibility that 8 barges as described in the Book of Ether, could be released at the same point, at the same time, and arrive across any large sea/ocean and arrive at the same point, 344 days later, having been driven by winds and ocean currents. Nothing more.

It is, literally, impossible.

Therefore the Book of Mormon is not a true history.

My response:

(1) It is a mathematical impossibility that 8 barges as described in the Book of Ether, could be released at the same point, at the same time, and arrive across any large sea/ocean and arrive at the same point, 344 days later, having been driven by winds and ocean currents.
(2) Therefore the Book of Mormon is not a true history.

However reasonable your position might be, this is a circular argument. You assume (1) without demonstrating it and then conclude from your assumed, undemonstrated premise that Book of Mormon is not a true history.

At this point, sans demonstration, one would be perfectly justified in rejecting (1) and, thus, the argument fails.

Even assuming that (1) is true, it is also undemonstrated; thus, the argument is not cogent or constraining.

This points toward the reason that I would speak of these things a bit differently than Beastie, for example. While she suggests, "...using languages as we normally do, it is reasonable and logical to state that the Book of Mormon has been proven to be 'not true' in terms of being a factual history," I would approach the issue from a different point of view. I would suggest rather that, all things considered, the probability of Book of Mormon being a true history is so small that one can reasonably exclude that probability from active consideration. I wouldn't say, however, that it has been proven to be "not true."

Chris