DrW wrote:Genuine belief in the historicity Book of Mormon can only be reasonably maintained by completely discounting gigantic swaths of established science, including the most fundamental principles of physics.
I find Peterson's gambit fascinating inasmuch as it shows a certain odd desperation not compatible with scholarship or critical thinking.
Unless I'm missing something, this approach of his can also be used to validate the historicity and truthfulness of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Islam, Brahma, unicorns... or pretty much anything.
SteelHead wrote:So the little strip between the two ponds?
What are you? Some kind of bigot?
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
It's come to something when the best evidence Hamblin and Peterson can find in support of the Book of Mormon is that there isn't any evidence for the Book of Mormon.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:It's come to something when the best evidence Hamblin and Peterson can find in support of the Book of Mormon is that there isn't any evidence for the Book of Mormon.
I understand they have no choice in this. I don't know of any claimed evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon that hasn't either been debunked, or was meaningless to begin with.
I like what was stated in "An Essay On The Genius and Writings of Jonathan Edwards": "It is obvious, that before the real truth of any proposition can be established, it is necessary both that the premises should be true, and that the conclusion should be logically deduced from them"
It has been many years since I interacted with either Hamblin or Peterson, but one thing always stood out to me. They seemed to not care about logic at all.
...Remember that quote for the next round, Lemmie. It's a good one.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
canpakes wrote:I find Peterson's gambit fascinating inasmuch as it shows a certain odd desperation not compatible with scholarship or critical thinking.
This is one of the things that led to my souring on apologetics.
I went into it thinking that it would be the means of proving the Book of Mormon true.
After many years, I began to realize that so much of the apologetics was aimed at arguing the Book of Mormon can't be proven not true.
It was quite a let down.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
