If plates then God

[tagriffy]

The ad hominem aside…

I am failing to see where there is an ad hominem. I’m simply asking whether or not Vogel has a day job and/or if writing books promoting the ‘pious fraud’ theory of Joseph Smith are an integral and/or important part of his income. Others here like to follow the money trail in certain instances. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask in regards to Vogel. Rasmussen writes because of his interests in Mormon Studies. He has a day job.

The ad hominem comes from the insinutation that Vogel's arguments are geared toward making money as opposed to attempting to get at the truth.

…it doesn't really matter what Rasmussen's credentials are or how he makes his living. The fact remains his argument is bunk.

I think he brings up some important points to consider. In a nutshell, what might we reasonably expect from Joseph Smith at the time/age/place in which the Book of Mormon came forth.

Most of those who see Joseph as the sole author are already willing to grant that the Book of Mormon is an extraordinary achievement when considering his time/age/place. If left at that, Rasmussen's calculations might demonstrate just how extraordinary the achievement is.

But that isn't what Rasmussen is trying to show, is it? His argument is the low odds of Smith's sole authorship increases the probability the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient:

But after reviewing the evidence, our extreme skeptic would have increased his estimate of an authentic Book of Mormon almost a thousand-fold—a change of about three orders of magnitude. If we were dealing with someone less skeptical—say, someone who gave the Book of Mormon only a 1 in 100 chance of being ancient, just the length of the Book of Mormon alone could be enough to move them to over 90 in 100 odds that it was ancient.

The problem here is that unless credible physical evidence appears showing the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient, the probability of it being so is precisely zero. So even if Rasmussen is correct that we ought to increase our estimate for an ancient Book of Mormon by a thousand-fold, the odds are still zero.

…there is already plenty of scholarship demonstrating Joseph Smith’s authorship and where he could have gotten his information, those who embrace IFT already have a strong position to work from.

There is also the opposing point of view that Joseph couldn’t have done it on his own. Hales and Rasmussen along with others have given pause to question whether Joseph was sole author.

Without credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples actually existed, Hales and Rasmussen have nothing to stand on. In a contest between sholarship demonstrating Joseph could have done it versus could not have done it, probability already favors the sholarship showing he could have done it.

As Rasmussen already notes, the only viable alternatives are a) Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon or b) the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text.

It does come down to that.

Since there is no credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text, that leaves Joseph's authorship the only viable theory. So even assuming all Rasmussen's calculations are correct, and no matter how high the odds are against it, Joseph's authorship is the most likely theory.

That’s an interesting statement.

Regards,
MG

What, you don't remember your Sherlock Holmes? It's just a variation on the theme of eliminating the impossible, leaving only one possibility, however unlikely it might seem.

[tagriffy]

I've skimmed [Rassmussen’s] essay and have already posted my thoughts about it.

All I remember is you saying it was “bunk”.

I’m assuming you think the same about the follow up essay by Hales that I linked to.

But then again you’ve said that it really doesn’t matter how much evidence there is that Joseph couldn’t have written the Book of Mormon on his own. Your position is that he did anyway, or at least that’s the most likely possibility.

Regards,
MG

If a computer study concluded I wrote something that was published before I was even born, what would you think of that study?

[MG 2.0]

I am failing to see where there is an ad hominem. I’m simply asking whether or not Vogel has a day job and/or if writing books promoting the ‘pious fraud’ theory of Joseph Smith are an integral and/or important part of his income. Others here like to follow the money trail in certain instances. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask in regards to Vogel. Rasmussen writes because of his interests in Mormon Studies. He has a day job.

The ad hominem comes from the insinutation that Vogel's arguments are geared toward making money as opposed to attempting to get at the truth.

I think he brings up some important points to consider. In a nutshell, what might we reasonably expect from Joseph Smith at the time/age/place in which the Book of Mormon came forth.

Most of those who see Joseph as the sole author are already willing to grant that the Book of Mormon is an extraordinary achievement when considering his time/age/place. If left at that, Rasmussen's calculations might demonstrate just how extraordinary the achievement is.

But that isn't what Rasmussen is trying to show, is it? His argument is the low odds of Smith's sole authorship increases the probability the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient:

But after reviewing the evidence, our extreme skeptic would have increased his estimate of an authentic Book of Mormon almost a thousand-fold—a change of about three orders of magnitude. If we were dealing with someone less skeptical—say, someone who gave the Book of Mormon only a 1 in 100 chance of being ancient, just the length of the Book of Mormon alone could be enough to move them to over 90 in 100 odds that it was ancient.

The problem here is that unless credible physical evidence appears showing the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient, the probability of it being so is precisely zero. So even if Rasmussen is correct that we ought to increase our estimate for an ancient Book of Mormon by a thousand-fold, the odds are still zero.

There is also the opposing point of view that Joseph couldn’t have done it on his own. Hales and Rasmussen along with others have given pause to question whether Joseph was sole author.

Without credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples actually existed, Hales and Rasmussen have nothing to stand on. In a contest between sholarship demonstrating Joseph could have done it versus could not have done it, probability already favors the sholarship showing he could have done it.

It does come down to that.

That’s an interesting statement.

Regards,
MG

What, you don't remember your Sherlock Holmes? It's just a variation on the theme of eliminating the impossible, leaving only one possibility, however unlikely it might seem.

It’s kind of like the chicken and the egg. If the egg exists there is more than likely a chicken. Somewhere.

But to look at the egg and say there is no chicken?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I am failing to see where there is an ad hominem. I’m simply asking whether or not Vogel has a day job and/or if writing books promoting the ‘pious fraud’ theory of Joseph Smith are an integral and/or important part of his income. Others here like to follow the money trail in certain instances. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask in regards to Vogel. Rasmussen writes because of his interests in Mormon Studies. He has a day job.

The ad hominem comes from the insinutation that Vogel's arguments are geared toward making money as opposed to attempting to get at the truth.

It’s not meant as an ad hominem. Thousands…tens of thousands of people write books for a living.

I’m simply curious if Vogel has a day job or if he, like other authors, lives off the proceeds of his books. Simple question, simple answer.

His books appeal to a particular audience. If he’s making a sizable amount from writing to that audience he is most probably going to be known for taking a certain position. Otherwise his books wouldn’t sell.

Simple supply and demand.

Clancy writes books for a certain audience. Grisham the same. They make money, they keep writing books.

Regards,
MG

[tagriffy]

It’s kind of like the chicken and the egg. If the egg exists there is more than likely a chicken. Somewhere.

But to look at the egg and say there is no chicken?

Regards,
MG

Not really. If the egg exists, it means that more than likely there some egg-laying creature somewhere. Wouldn't mean it's a chicken.

What you're looking for is something that has two--and only two--viable possibilities. Then you would have to weigh the probabilities for each of the viable candidates.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It’s kind of like the chicken and the egg. If the egg exists there is more than likely a chicken. Somewhere.

But to look at the egg and say there is no chicken?

Regards,
MG

If you are only looking for a chicken, then you are missing about 99.99% of all other alternatives/animal species that lay eggs.

So, your analogy perfectly fits both you and Mormonism. Good job, MG.

[tagriffy]

It’s not meant as an ad hominem. Thousands…tens of thousands of people write books for a living.

I’m simply curious if Vogel has a day job or if he, like other authors, lives off the proceeds of his books. Simple question, simple answer.

His books appeal to a particular audience. If he’s making a sizable amount from writing to that audience he is most probably going to be known for taking a certain position. Otherwise his books wouldn’t sell.

Simple supply and demand.

Clancy writes books for a certain audience. Grisham the same. They make money, they keep writing books.

Regards,
MG

You're still insinuating Vogel's arguments are made because that's how he makes money. You're not dealing with his arguments at all, and that is why it's ad hominem.

[MG 2.0]

It’s kind of like the chicken and the egg. If the egg exists there is more than likely a chicken. Somewhere.

But to look at the egg and say there is no chicken?

Regards,
MG

Not really. If the egg exists, it means that more than likely there some egg-laying creature somewhere. Wouldn't mean it's a chicken.

What you're looking for is something that has two--and only two--viable possibilities. Then you would have to weigh the probabilities for each of the viable candidates.

If it’s a chicken egg it belongs to a chicken

If the Book of Mormon shows the indications of having not been written by Joseph Smith we are left with VERY few possibilities. One of them being that it is what it purports to be. An ancient history and book of scripture written on plates and delivered by an angel who was the custodian and keeper of the plates.

Joseph not writing the Book of Mormon from his own mind=visionary experience with angel=plates containing an actual history of ancient peoples living somewhere in the New World.

Chicken egg=chicken.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It’s kind of like the chicken and the egg. If the egg exists there is more than likely a chicken. Somewhere.

But to look at the egg and say there is no chicken?

Regards,
MG

If you are only looking for a chicken, then you are missing about 99.99% of all other alternatives/animal species that lay eggs.

So, your analogy perfectly fits both you and Mormonism. Good job, MG.

I was quite explicit in saying “chicken and the egg”. You have to have it spelled out for you?

It’s interesting to me that you fail to comprehend a simple analogy.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

If you are only looking for a chicken, then you are missing about 99.99% of all other alternatives/animal species that lay eggs.

So, your analogy perfectly fits both you and Mormonism. Good job, MG.

I was quite explicit in saying “chicken and the egg”. You have to have it spelled out for you?

It’s interesting to me that you fail to comprehend a simple analogy.

Regards,
MG

So, you have a chicken and an egg and you feel "there is more than likely a chicken somewhere?"

Good heavens, MG. Never stop with your analogies. They are freaking awesome.