Hey Maklelan: The Fallacy of Possible Proof

[_The Dude]

Maklelan...

I think he only hangs in the celestial forum, by the way.

I saw his name at the top of this forum when I made the OP. I assume he missed it for now.

Also, I don't want him to have to answer assertions about the "ludicrous absurdity" of his beliefs, or Charity's for that matter. I just wanted him to see a good example of the fallacy of future evidence.

[_Tommy]

Has anyone heard of the fallacy of questioning the scriptures? I have. And I'm not pleased, nor is the Lord. I do need to point out that dear sister Charity is being misrepresented. She did not say that proof "might" come in the future. She says, and she is correct, that proof is certain to come. The Book of Mormon is true, and it will be proven. Just as surely as all of you will die one day and plead with a Just God for mercy because of your unbelief in this mortal probationary period.

[_Boyd_K_Packer]

Maklelan-

Per our discussion the other day, do you agree that this quote from Bond... James Bond's signature line contains the fallacy of possible proof (or fallacy of future evidence, if the word "proof" is disturbing)?

"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07


...I remember you said you'd never seen this argument from a Mormon.

It seems the apostates and infidels on this board disapprove of sweet Sister Charity's faith. I must say, as a high ranking member of the Lord's anointed I find Charaty to be a model of faith and obedience. If I had the power to bottle her personality and force all members to partake of the sweet liquid and become like unto her, I would do it. Although I don't know Sister Charity personally, through the obedience she projects on these boards, I am never kept up at night worrying that she may be wearing two earrings. I pray that all of you rid yourselves of pride and become more Charity-like, for she is the model Latter-Day Saint.

I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Boyd K. Packer

[_The Dude]

Has anyone heard of the fallacy of questioning the scriptures? I have. And I'm not pleased, nor is the Lord. I do need to point out that dear sister Charity is being misrepresented. She did not say that proof "might" come in the future. She says, and she is correct, that proof is certain to come. The Book of Mormon is true, and it will be proven. Just as surely as all of you will die one day and plead with a Just God for mercy because of your unbelief in this mortal probationary period.

You're right -- there's no fallacy in "certain" proof.

LOL, I'm falling off my chair.

[_silentkid]

Has anyone heard of the fallacy of questioning the scriptures? I have.

LOL. Genius.

[_maklelan]

Maklelan-

Per our discussion the other day, do you agree that this quote from Bond... James Bond's signature line contains the fallacy of possible proof (or fallacy of future evidence, if the word "proof" is disturbing)?

"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07


...I remember you said you'd never seen this argument from a Mormon.

I told you I avoid reading posts when I don't think I'm gonna learn anything, and (no offense to charity), but her posts rarely teach me anything new, and I rarely read them.

Was this statement made as evidence submitted in an actual intellectual debate, or was this just something that she randomly said that is being presented as part of an actual argument? I find there's a major distinction when trying to point out fallacies in just discussion and in actual debate.

[_maklelan]

Mac really has seen it before but in order to fully process it one must not have mental blocks in place. Mac unfortunately views the world through his rose colored glasses of Mormonism.

Do I know you or are you just making huge assumptions?

[_maklelan]

Neccesary? yes. Obvious? maybee.

Mac, like most TBM's does not get the states of ludicrous absurdity his beliefs are held in. To Mac, WE are the irrational. that's all I was saying.

Its like arguing with the retarded when you approach them. The same song and dance shell game is played and they come away with a strengthened smugness, the exmo comes away frustrated at why the Mormon can't see the forest through the trees.

I'm kinda at a loss here. Are you somehow familiar with my perspective on life?

[_The Dude]

I told you I avoid reading posts when I don't think I'm gonna learn anything, and (no offense to charity), but her posts rarely teach me anything new, and I rarely read them.

I got that. It's not about you "paying attention" or not. I just wanted to say: "see, this is a great example of what I'm talking about."

Was this statement made as evidence submitted in an actual intellectual debate, or was this just something that she randomly said that is being presented as part of an actual argument? I find there's a major distinction when trying to point out fallacies in just discussion and in actual debate.

Here's the whole post:

the dude, we are flexible because we don't have to be locked into any one explanation. We start with the knowledge that the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture translated by Joseph Smith by the power of God. Exactly how the scripture originated (what was reformed Egyptian, where did Nephi live, how did Moroni get the plates to New York state) does not matter.

We find it interesting to consider those questions, but it doesn't matter. And we have fun with various theories that are proposed, with various scholarly studies that give information and suggestions about evidences.

Since we have sure knowledge via the Spirit, if someone produces some little bit that goes against what we know, we can let it roll of our backs like water off a duck. It doesn't phase us. We can be patient. Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.

To me, the bold seems to be the sum of her apologetic philosophy. Not only that, but she demonstrates it with regularity.

Of course I don't hold you responsible or anything. I don't expect you to defend her either. Just like I said, I wanted you to see a crystal-clear example of this fallacy. That is all.

See the original thread if you want more context.... Joseph Smith as apologist"

[_maklelan]

I told you I avoid reading posts when I don't think I'm gonna learn anything, and (no offense to charity), but her posts rarely teach me anything new, and I rarely read them.

I got that. It's not about you "paying attention" or not. I just wanted to say: "see, this is a great example of what I'm talking about."

Understood.

Was this statement made as evidence submitted in an actual intellectual debate, or was this just something that she randomly said that is being presented as part of an actual argument? I find there's a major distinction when trying to point out fallacies in just discussion and in actual debate.

Here's the whole post:

the dude, we are flexible because we don't have to be locked into any one explanation. We start with the knowledge that the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture translated by Joseph Smith by the power of God. Exactly how the scripture originated (what was reformed Egyptian, where did Nephi live, how did Moroni get the plates to New York state) does not matter.

We find it interesting to consider those questions, but it doesn't matter. And we have fun with various theories that are proposed, with various scholarly studies that give information and suggestions about evidences.

Since we have sure knowledge via the Spirit, if someone produces some little bit that goes against what we know, we can let it roll of our backs like water off a duck. It doesn't phase us. We can be patient. Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.

To me, the bold seems to be the sum of her apologetic philosophy. Not only that, but she demonstrates it with regularity.

Of course I don't hold you responsible or anything. I don't expect you to defend her either. Just like I said, I wanted you to see a crystal-clear example of this fallacy. That is all.

See the original thread if you want more context.... Joseph Smith as apologist"

I think it's definitely an example of that. But I think if you're trying to show that LDS scholars resort to these kinds of tactics in their scholarship or even in their debating on the internet I don't think this post does a thing to support it. This is a non-scholar sharing a testimony. I will grant that that kind of statement runs rampant, but I don't see it in our scholarship.