because it's tough for the audience to accept that the Book of Mormon saved the day when the Bible would have. In the first example, had the Book of Mormon not been there, he would have died. so if you make a starter defintion of: one's life is saved by X, iif absent X he would have died, then in the first instance it seems intuitive that the Book of Mormon saved him. In the second instance, since absent X (the Book of Mormon), he wouldn't have died, then it doesn't seem like we can argue the Book of Mormon saved him.
So what saved him then? The only thing that changed was putting the Bible behind it. So did the Bible save him, since that's what changed in the scenario? Well, no, how can something save you that has no contact with the bullet?
So we can say, nothing saved him. But it seemed like his life was saved. so what saved it? We could say that the two books together as a system saved it, but a true materialist/physicalist will want a causal explanation of how each part of the system contributed. And since plotting the action of every particle involved in the scene will leave the Bible untouched, it's a superflous part of the system, it seems. But if we go that route, then our initial definition of saving a life is in trouble too...
Seems to me like a Mormon congregation would have been just as believing the second time as they were the first, though maybe a little disappointed that total credit couldn't go to the Book of Mormon.
Actually, any book or pad of paper thick enough could have stopped the bullet and if it had been, say, an empty notebook he could have gone around saying the notebook saved his life and the Mormons would say, oh, that's nice, lucky you, but if it's a Book of Mormon, then it says something about their religious beliefs. If you strip it of Mormonism, then whatever book happens to be on the outside is irrelavent, but I think Mormons would be highly impressed that a Book of Mormon saved his life twice. (was it the same book and did the bullet go into the same hole again? that might make a difference!)
Gadianton wrote: I'm in the process of digesting this problem's ramifications in my spare time, and I'm curious what kind of angle some of the folks here will tackle it from.
Perhaps you should PM those that you are curious about their take on it, gad? Cause I gotta tell you... I am completely obsessed with this and the article you sent me and I'm having considerable difficulty even comprehending the article -- much less this problem.
I wish others would pipe up and type something. Surely Jersey Girl and I aren't the only ones staring at this problem scratching our heads?
I recently saw an episode of the Mythbusters were they tested the myth that a book of any thickness could stop a bullet. There evidence suggests that most any high powered rifle (which is what I'd assume a sniper would use) couldn't be stopped by a Dictionary, much less a minature Book of Mormon. So I think you're scenario is already in trouble.
*shrugs*
"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
Bond...James Bond wrote:I recently saw an episode of the Mythbusters were they tested the myth that a book of any thickness could stop a bullet. There evidence suggests that most any high powered rifle (which is what I'd assume a sniper would use) couldn't be stopped by a Dictionary, much less a minature Book of Mormon. So I think you're scenario is already in trouble.
*shrugs*
Well, I think we have to suspend disbelief for a moment here.
Did you see Gad's definition:
one's life is saved by X, iif absent X he would have died, then in the first instance it seems intuitive that the Book of Mormon saved him. In the second instance, since absent X (the Book of Mormon), he wouldn't have died, then it doesn't seem like we can argue the Book of Mormon saved him.
So, it doesn't really matter if it is "realistic" or not. It comes down to what saved him. Replace the books with tank and piece of wood if you need to. Was it the tank that saved him in the second instance or the flimsy piece of wood?
