DrW wrote:In the same statement, you admit that Mormonism has not proven their [sic] claims, and then reject the assertion that it has failed to prove its claims. Think about it.
I did. Now
you do so.
It isn't reasonable use of the language to speak of someone's "failure" to do something that she had no intention of doing, wasn't attempting, and/or didn't think could be done.
It would be silly to announce that I've "failed" to achieve checkmate for fully the past twenty four hours. I haven't been playing chess.
It would be fatuous to reveal that Abraham Lincoln "failed" to sign the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't possible for him to have done so, and, presumably, he never made the attempt.
My Ford hasn't "failed" to become a Chevrolet. My tortoise hasn't "failed" to become a cheetah. My house hasn't "failed" to turn into a sailing yacht. My computer hasn't "failed" to transform itself into an Elizabethan sonnet. Kant didn't "fail" to turn his metaphysical theories into organic chemistry.
DrW wrote:With all due respect, just as the average Mormon would probably see nothing ironic in the quote in my post above from the Church member regarding the "Book of Mormon" musical, you apparently do not appreciate the internal contradiction in your statement. If you still can't see the problem, try reading your quote aloud or ask any non-Mormon colleague to help you out.
There is no contradiction.
Here are two formally analogous statements, with the terms changed so as, if at all possible, to help you to grasp the point, and with a suitable prologue sentence added, comparable to the one that sparked my initial comment, in order to make the context clear:
X. "Joe Montana failed to hit a single home run over his entire professional career."
Y. "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Joe Montana never hit a home run in a professional game. He wasn't supposed to do so, either, and, accordingly, I reject your claim that he
failed to do so."
X. "Professor Langweil failed to prove beyond any possible doubt or challenge that
King Lear is a better play than
Othello."
Y. "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Professor Langweil never proved
King Lear a better play than
Othello in a manner that would forever silence any possible dissenters. That's not the way literary criticism works -- it's not Euclidian geometry, after all -- and he never so much as hinted that he was
attempting such a "proof." Accordingly, I reject your claim that he
failed to provide irrefutable and irresistible demonstration that
King Lear is better than
Othello."
Philosophical or metaphysical claims, claims about the moral purpose of the universe or the lack thereof, claims about the truth or falsity of theism, and the like, can be argued for and against, made more or less plausible, etc., but there are very few who believe that they can be decisively proven or disproven, let alone that they already
have been proven or disproven, in such a way as to silence all dissent.
Your smug assumption of superiority ("ask any non-Mormon colleague to help you out") is laughably unfounded. You failed to understand the statement.