I suppose the existence of bad arguments is obvious enough that one is not required to produce an example to demonstrate that. However it isn't very interesting to just say there exist bad arguments.
I was going to complain that this many page thread seems primarily about MG and not much about the debate. I have tried to watch the debate but could only find interest enough to watch some. Not much new. I have heard about NHM before it is one of the stronger positive evidences. It is sort of archeological support. On that subject one might add that we know where Jerusalem is, the starting location of the story.
I did hear an argument I have never heard before. Hansen noted that with NHM there is more archeological evidence for 1 Nephi than there is for the Exodus. It is true there is no direct evidence of a bunch of people crossing the desert 3500 years ago. There are several consideration which could cast doubt on the reality or accuracy of the Exodus story. I find it difficult to think of reasons why that can help belief in the Book of Mormon .
I thought this Exodus comparison is a pretty good example of bad apologetic arguments.
Thank you for sifting through the video to find some novel arguments. I think the Exodus argument might be more persuasive to believing Christians than those who think Exodus was too far back in the Bible to have any link to actual history. According to wikipedia "Much of the focus of modern criticism has been the historicity of the United Monarchy of Israel, which according to the Hebrew Bible ruled over both Judea and Samaria around the 10th century BCE."
It stands to reason that beyond 1000 B.C. those stories aren't history so much as they are mythology.
Drumdude, Hi , I can see your point if by believing Christians you mean people who feel inerrancy is a requirement to believe everything in the Bible without or despite evidence. Why shouldn't you believe the Book of Mormon the same way? (well, ah, the same people who said I had to believe the Bible to be inerrant told me that I cannot believe the Book of Mormon)
For people hoping to live closer to the real world there are different possible views about Exodus. The relationship between myth folklore and history can be mixed and unclear. Considering Exodus it is clear that it is sandwiched into very real historical situations. Even with historical uncertainty about the kings of a united kingdom the history of the kings of the divided kingdom is solidly established at least in broad outlines. Egypt was quite real and a periodic if not ongoing threat to the independence and power of the people in Judea. Freedom from Egypt is a theme dear to the heart of very real people for very real reasons.
Last edited by huckelberry on Mon Sep 09, 2024 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It’s always worth checking into MG 2.0’s sources, because he clearly doesn’t! It’s no wonder he ran away pretty sharpish this time.
I’m OK with using Thoughtful Faith as a resource. I would encourage others to do so. That doesn’t mean that one necessarily is committed to accepting everything that Jacob or his guests have to say as being the absolute truth.
It’s a useful resource. One, possibly, that some folks would rather that others ignore…for reasons of their own making. Some folks here have simply written him off. Politics, religious disagreements, etc...
No, people have objected to your 'resource' for reasons having to do with whether he's a good resource or not. And he is clearly NOT. I'd still be interested in your response to what I posted earlier, about what people say about hansen:
–]Strong_Attorney_8646Unobeisant[F] 15 points 1 year ago
[Hansen] wants to act like he's reached his positions after really wrestling with the issues, but they sure sound like primary level answers to me in all of the videos I've watched.
While he may have stated in this interview that he stands against ad hominem or personal attacks, he still has videos on his channel attacking John Dehlin, Dr. Julie Hanks, and others. I mean he even calls out certain Christian apologists by name...
[–]unixguy55 8 points 1 year ago
[Hansen] often strays off topic, and while he tries not to engage in personal attacks, he often uses every other logical fallacy to argue his point. When he does cite sources or provide statistical data, it's always polarized to support his viewpoint exclusively.
[–]Strong_Attorney_8646Unobeisant[F] 4 points 1 year ago
Exactly. He seems to have little concern for determining truth and cares much more about scoring rhetorical points through debate... https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... r/iykz0xq/
The opinion above is from a friend of mine, I value that opinion immeasurably more than that of a hit-and-run poster who doesn't actually listen to the references he posts. In fact, given your history, I'm pretty sure you posted Hansen's work because you know how controversial he is, and you wanted to pick a fight. You have clearly indicated you have no interest in discussing the actual topics, as evidenced by your lazy A.I. use, but, what else is new?!!??!!!
If you want to fully understand how uninformed Hansen is, I encourage you to research the term “excited delirium” and would point you in the direction of Jon Robson’s podcast series “Things Fell Apart” - Series 2 Episode 1 it’s a worthy 34 minute listen.
I don’t have a problem with Jacob Hansen proselyting his political beliefs. The fact that you may not agree with him doesn’t then entail that he is not to be taken seriously. You may have your own flaws in the way you view the world of politics. Should you not be taken seriously also?
It’s unfortunate when we start to attack the messenger rather than the arguments.
Regards,
MG
IHQ isn't attacking the messenger, he's questioning the wisdom of Hansen's own posted messages. This isn't a case of someone digging through Hansen's sock drawer to find something untoward. Hansen is hanging this on the clothesline in his own front yard and asking folks to come and take a gander. Hansen's politics are explicitly a part of his arguments.
The only way that you and IHAQ are wrong is that what he's hanging on the clothesline is obviously a huge credibility boost for MG. Why would MG question JH because JH turns out to be a Fox-news conservative? By pointing out that JH is a Trump supporter or an apologist for controversial cops would only work with left-leaning people, maybe a liberal Mormon apologist would be embarrassed by the association. Now MG has a convenient excuse, that liberals are refusing to listen to JH because of JH's political ties.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
If you want to fully understand how uninformed Hansen is, I encourage you to research the term “excited delirium” and would point you in the direction of Jon Robson’s podcast series “Things Fell Apart” - Series 2 Episode 1 it’s a worthy 34 minute listen.
I don’t have a problem with Jacob Hansen proselyting his political beliefs. The fact that you may not agree with him doesn’t then entail that he is not to be taken seriously. You may have your own flaws in the way you view the world of politics. Should you not be taken seriously also?
It’s unfortunate when we start to attack the messenger rather than the arguments.
Regards,
MG
IHQ isn't attacking the messenger, he's questioning the wisdom of Hansen's own posted messages. This isn't a case of someone digging through Hansen's sock drawer to find something untoward. Hansen is hanging this on the clothesline in his own front yard and asking folks to come and take a gander. Hansen's politics are explicitly a part of his arguments.
Please show me how I'm wrong.
What’s funny about MG 2.0’s insistence that one completely disregard the source of any information, and only narrowly focus on the specific message he wants you to look at (whatever that is because he never explicitly says), is that both he and his monologist idols do exactly the opposite. If the source of the information is critical of the Church, then any point or information or message from that source can be disregarded out of hand. Jeremy Runnells is a point in case. And he can also work it in reverse - anything and everything Nelson and his cabal of apostles do and say is beyond reproach, because they are to him a trusted source. He really does what it to be “heads he wins, tails you lose”.
Maybe MG 2.0 will finally post something specific from his linked source in the OP that he thinks is a compelling point in answering the question he posed “Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired?”, but I don’t think he will.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The only way that you and IHAQ are wrong is that what he's hanging on the clothesline is obviously a huge credibility boost for MG. Why would MG question JH because JH turns out to be a Fox-news conservative? By pointing out that JH is a Trump supporter or an apologist for controversial cops would only work with left-leaning people, maybe a liberal Mormon apologist would be embarrassed by the association. Now MG has a convenient excuse, that liberals are refusing to listen to JH because of JH's political ties.
Nobody’s refusing to listen to Hansen. In fact I’d wager some posters here are better researched into Hansen and his thoughts than MG 2.0 is. People are rejecting Hansens thoughts and opinions because they simply don’t stand up to a basic level of reasoned scrutiny. He doesn’t put the legwork in to his public articulations. He copies click bait and hopes to get attention by doing so. He’s a Lazy Learner, and Lazy Learners like MG 2.0 lap it up.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The only way that you and IHAQ are wrong is that what he's hanging on the clothesline is obviously a huge credibility boost for MG. Why would MG question JH because JH turns out to be a Fox-news conservative? By pointing out that JH is a Trump supporter or an apologist for controversial cops would only work with left-leaning people, maybe a liberal Mormon apologist would be embarrassed by the association. Now MG has a convenient excuse, that liberals are refusing to listen to JH because of JH's political ties.
Nobody’s refusing to listen to Hansen. In fact I’d wager some posters here are better researched into Hansen and his thoughts than MG 2.0 is. People are rejecting Hansens thoughts and opinions because they simply don’t stand up to a basic level of reasoned scrutiny. He doesn’t put the legwork in to his public articulations. He copies click bait and hopes to get attention by doing so. He’s a Lazy Learner, and Lazy Learners like MG 2.0 lap it up.
Nobody’s refusing to listen to Hansen. In fact, I’d wager some posters here are better researched into Hansen and his thoughts than MG 2.0 is. People are rejecting Hansens thoughts and opinions because they simply don’t stand up to a basic level of reasoned scrutiny. He doesn’t put the legwork in to his public articulations. He copies click bait and hopes to get attention by doing so. He’s a Lazy Learner, and Lazy Learners like MG 2.0 lap it up.
Top
Well that's obviously true, as several posters here appear to have reviewed his material (not me). I would put my money on any of our regulars accurately representing Hanson before I'd trust MG's recollection. I don't think he's even tried to show he knows anything about it, it was his usual hit and run. He couldn't even give me an example of a bad apologetic.
Your point read to me as if you we're addressing MG primarily, would MG vote Trump on Hanson's recommendation -- well obviously YES, he didn't need Hanson's recommendation. Maybe your point was intended toward other forum members.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
Your point read to me as if you we're addressing MG primarily, would MG vote Trump on Hanson's recommendation -- well obviously YES, he didn't need Hanson's recommendation. Maybe your point was intended toward other forum members.
My point was really to show how shallowly MG 2.0 operates. When challenged he presents himself as above it all. Too busy for your questions. Or your questions just aren’t interesting enough for him to bother with. But everyone knows he hasn’t even properly considered the source he thinks supports his preformed conclusion. Of course, the posters here see through him, ask a couple of easy questions which he can’t answer, and then he gets all superior and busy. He’s posted a lot on this thread, yet he’s not answered your simple question. He’s either an idiot - because he keeps repeating the same behaviour expecting different results. Or he’s just a troll with an unwarranted ego, because he keeps repeating the same behaviour because he wants the same results.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
