Who Knows wrote:I don't know. Are presents under the tree christmas morning, evidence of santa claus? :)
From the perspective of someone lacking an alternative explanation for them, yes.
Just as the apparent motion of the sun across the sky is (or was) evidence for a geocentric universe.
It's all part of an on-going conversation.
I distinguish between evidence and proof. I do so for reasons.
I guess for me the "lacking an alternative explanation" part is the key. In my judgment, the alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon are far more compelling and have far more solid evidence for them than do the supernatural explanation for the book's emergence.
Scottie wrote:Pahoran has told me himself that he is the nicest guy in the world in real life, and that he is trying to get some kind of internet reputation as a jerk as Pahoran...weird.
I wouldn't doubt that at all. Online, he has said things to me and to others that I would not say to my worst enemy. But maybe offline he's all sweetness and light. Who knows?
I don't post on MAD, but I occasionally browse through the threads there. I have come to point where if I see that a post was made by Pahoran, I simply skip past it. In my experience, his posts are almost always filled with hateful invective and sneering pointed at anyone who doesn't agree with his worldview. His posts are ugly and degrading to the people he addressing.
Maybe in real life, he's a great guy, but obviously he has it in him to also be a complete and utter ***. Maybe he uses the online world to release the pressure of putting on a happy face for the real world to see. I don't know.
You said it. I skip his posts for the same reason: there's nothing in them except human ugliness.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Who Knows wrote:I don't know. Are presents under the tree christmas morning, evidence of santa claus? :)
From the perspective of someone lacking an alternative explanation for them, yes.
Just as the apparent motion of the sun across the sky is (or was) evidence for a geocentric universe.
I'm still not sure. Was the motion of the sun across the sky really evidence of a geocentric universe? Or was it evidence that the sun and earth were moving relative to each other (as we know now). And unfortunately, those who adopted a geocentric view misinterpreted what the evidence was telling them.
In other words, the motion of the sun across the sky was not evidence of a geocentric universe. It was evidence of something, but was just interpreted incorrectly.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
The Nehor wrote: [ If I could prophesy on demand I would do such a study. Problem is it just comes and I either know something or say something and it happens.
Well then Nehor, without demonstration or without a reliable source to confirm, I (and others) will be justified in dismissing or reaching other conclusions about you and your claims.
Who Knows wrote:I don't know. Are presents under the tree christmas morning, evidence of santa claus? :)
From the perspective of someone lacking an alternative explanation for them, yes.
Just as the apparent motion of the sun across the sky is (or was) evidence for a geocentric universe.
It's all part of an on-going conversation.
I distinguish between evidence and proof. I do so for reasons.
I guess for me the "lacking an alternative explanation" part is the key. In my judgment, the alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon are far more compelling and have far more solid evidence for them than do the supernatural explanation for the book's emergence.
Exactly. Especially if one makes use of Occam's Razor.
I don't know. Are presents under the tree christmas morning, evidence of santa claus? :)
That depends on what you think makes something evidence of a proposition. Under some notions of evidence in philosophy of science, the answer is unquestionably yes. Under others , no. In this analogy, I suppose the Book of Mormon is "Santa Claus," but you could've just easily have said, "is my talking to you evidence that you exist as a person?"
Yes, many people have looked at the evidence from both sides and concluded that Mormonism is false. Many have looked at that same evidence and concluded that it is true.
Conclusions are different than evidence. Just because you have concluded that there is overwhelming evidence against Mormonism doesn't mean evidence for Mormonism doesn't exist.
I'm not sure that comparing the orbits of the planets is a comparable scenario. That is something which it is possible to prove. Mormonism is impossible to prove or disprove.
Who Knows wrote:I don't know. Are presents under the tree christmas morning, evidence of santa claus? :)
From the perspective of someone lacking an alternative explanation for them, yes.
Just as the apparent motion of the sun across the sky is (or was) evidence for a geocentric universe.
It's all part of an on-going conversation.
I distinguish between evidence and proof. I do so for reasons.
I guess for me the "lacking an alternative explanation" part is the key. In my judgment, the alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon are far more compelling and have far more solid evidence for them than do the supernatural explanation for the book's emergence.
Agreed. I was looking at a book The Logic of Real Arguments by Alex Fisher and what I read related to this thread.
p.119 "It is enough now to say that what we believe has to be coherent, has to 'hang together'; one piece of evidence is strengthened if it 'fits' with a great deal more we know and believe and is weakened if it doesn't."
Who Knows wrote:I don't know. Are presents under the tree christmas morning, evidence of santa claus? :)
That depends on what you think makes something evidence of a proposition. Under some notions of evidence in philosophy of science, the answer is unquestionably yes.
How so? Help me understand. I can see that presents under the tree is evidence of something. But evidence of what? It can only be evidence of what it is that actually happened, right? In other words, it can only be evidence that someone or something placed presents under the tree. If indeed santa does not exist - how can this scenario possibly be evidence of the existence of santa?
Is there such a thing as evidence for something, which does not exist?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...