Volcanoes: Proof of Truth

[_Danna]

Thanks for all the information and links everyone, this has been an interesting thread!

Off to go follow volcanoes on the www now,

[_harmony]

Science meets myth, whether modern or ancient, it scarsely.

I couldn't agree more.

It scarsely on the drum roll whether up or down, in spades.

And for the life of me, I can't remember what I was going to write, before I was so rudely interrupted.

Ah well, I can only be profound once a day, and I've already used up my quota for today.

Thanks for the volcano links. I was never much bothered by the references, so volcanos are just not an issue with me.

[_Ray A]

Having had a very productive day, and "real work" coming up soon, I'll take a few minutes to reply to this:

Does evidence for a volcanic eruption prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

No. Of course not.

That is, I have to say, a rather ridiculous question.

Nobody is thinking in such terms. But it's silly to fault a piece of a cumulative case merely because it doesn't establish everything at one fell swoop.

I wouldn't agree that it's a "cumulative case" any more than large footprints in the snow is a "cumulative case" for Big Foot (It's still, nevertheless, an interesting point, but not a crucial one). The problem is that to even have a real case, first barriers have to be overcome, like how come Christians living before Christ practised the Law of Moses? (Or how Adam lived on two continents, unless he was the first Missourian) That's why I've said that metals, horses, flora and fauna don't really interest me that much (though I will occasionally participate in those debates). Have you ever heard the joke about the Irishman who lost a 50 cent piece? He was searching for it outside a shed, when someone came along and asked,

"Wot you lookin' for Paddy?".

"I lost me 50 cents."

"Do you have any idea at all where you lost it?"

"In the shed."

"Then why are you looking for it outside here?"

"Because it's too dark in there, I can't see a thing".

You have to look in the right places to find what you're looking for. Looking for what one Mormon writer called "fool's gold", should be secondary to answering primary problems - like how Christian Jews were observing the Law of Moses in the 559 BC.

2 Nephi 25:

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

Someone really said this between 559-545 BC?

You tell me how that is possible, and then I'll agree that volcanoes in the time period of 3 Nephi is "cumulative evidence".

[_Daniel Peterson]

I wouldn't agree that it's a "cumulative case" any more than large footprints in the snow is a "cumulative case" for Big Foot

No single item can be a "cumulative case." A "cumulative case" is constructed by . . . accumulating multiple items, in the plural. But a single item can be part of a "cumulative case."

The problem is that to even have a real case, first barriers have to be overcome

Exactly.

It's a matter of prior assumptions and prior possibilities. Quite so.

But different people will see different things as barriers, and will differ as to whether the relevant barriers have been overcome.

For example, this doesn't seem to me to be an important prior barrier (or, as an analytical philosopher might call it, a "defeater"):

like how come Christians living before Christ practised the Law of Moses?

It's an interesting question, but, for me, not at all difficult to conceptualize.

And this one does nothing for or to me whatever:

Or how Adam lived on two continents, unless he was the first Missourian

Have you ever heard the joke about the Irishman who lost a 50 cent piece?

Yes. I've even used it.

And Larry Poulsen has written a piece that uses it in the title.

Someone really said this between 559-545 BC?

You tell me how that is possible, and then I'll agree that volcanoes in the time period of 3 Nephi is "cumulative evidence".

I never said that volcanoes were "cumulative evidence." I described them as "a piece of a cumulative case." That's quite different.

And I just don't have much problem with the possibility of pre-Christian Christians. The Resurrection of Christ is a much taller hurdle. Once the possibility of an intervening, miracle-working God is granted, at least as a hypothesis, the options are open. If, however, the existence of such a God is what William James termed a "dead option," then there's no reason to get hung up on the notion of messianic Jews before Christ. That would be the least of one's reservations.

[_Ray A]

But different people will see different things as barriers, and will differ as to whether the relevant barriers have been overcome.

In my opinion they haven't. And I think it would be the case with every other living biblical scholar, including David Wright.

It's an interesting question, but, for me, not at all difficult to conceptualize.

With a faith approach, sure. People can have faith in just about anything they want, including the idea that aliens have landed and are really in control of the planet. Some do actually believe this.

And this one does nothing for or to me whatever:

Or how Adam lived on two continents, unless he was the first Missourian

So you accept D&C 117 that Adam-Ondi-Aman was in Missouri, where Adam dwelt, where he sacrificed, and where Joseph Smith also said outside of revelation that he dwelt?

And I just don't have much problem with the possibility of pre-Christian Christians. The Resurrection of Christ is a much taller hurdle. Once the possibility of an intervening, miracle-working God is granted, at least as a hypothesis, the options are open. If, however, the existence of such a God is what William James termed a "dead option," then there's no reason to get hung up on the notion of messianic Jews before Christ. That would be the least of one's reservations.

I understand better now. It really hinges on faith. I don't mock your faith, but it's difficult to place too much emphasis on the evidences "people of faith" present, realising that no logical "stumbling block" can overcome that faith, not even if every biblical scholar, past or present, disagrees with such a "faith" assessment. I suppose it would be correct to say that you're one of those "overcome by faith".


I have no argument with that. Each to his/her own.

And I'm off to work.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In my opinion they haven't. And I think it would be the case with every other living biblical scholar, including David Wright.

You do realize that there are believing LDS biblical scholars, don't you?

With a faith approach, sure. People can have faith in just about anything they want, including the idea that aliens have landed and are really in control of the planet. Some do actually believe this.

Some do, yes.

And if you now lean to the position that I'm an irrationalist, completely ungrounded in reality, that's the way you'll view me, as well.

So you accept D&C 117 that Adam-Ondi-Aman was in Missouri, where Adam dwelt, where he sacrificed, and where Joseph Smith also said outside of revelation that he dwelt?

I have no particular problem with it.

I understand better now. It really hinges on faith. I don't mock your faith, but it's difficult to place too much emphasis on the evidences "people of faith" present, realising that no logical "stumbling block" can overcome that faith, not even if every biblical scholar, past or present, disagrees with such a "faith" assessment. I suppose it would be correct to say that you're one of those "overcome by faith".

I think I've demonstrated over the years that I'm entirely willing to reason about these matters on the basis of evidence. I think you once recognized that.

[_collegeterrace]

I understand better now. It really hinges on faith. I don't mock your faith, but it's difficult to place too much emphasis on the evidences "people of faith" present, realising that no logical "stumbling block" can overcome that faith, not even if every biblical scholar, past or present, disagrees with such a "faith" assessment. I suppose it would be correct to say that you're one of those "overcome by faith".

I think I've demonstrated over the years that I'm entirely willing to reason about these matters on the basis of evidence. I think you once recognized that.

Oh sweet Jesus! With such sad feeling being wrought out Danny by the once LDS loving and defending Ray A, I should probably take him off my ignore list!

I'd hate to miss another moment like that! Ray, you are off my ignore list.

Thanks for quoting him Dan, otherwise I would have never seen this wonderful moment!

[_harmony]

I think I've demonstrated over the years that I'm entirely willing to reason about these matters on the basis of evidence. I think you once recognized that.

You never leave the faith paradigm, Daniel.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You never leave the faith paradigm, Daniel.

I advocate my position.

You don't?

I believe my position to be correct.

You don't believe yours to be correct?




XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[_harmony]

You never leave the faith paradigm, Daniel.

I advocate my position.

You don't?

I believe my position to be correct.

You don't believe yours to be correct?

Then what you said earlier isn't entirely correct. You aren't "...entirely willing to reason about these matters on the basis of evidence." You already have your mind made up. You believe your position to be correct. You don't have an open mind, willing to reason on the basis of evidence.