Falsification of the Mormon Church

[_Coggins7]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could be falsified if:


1. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.

2. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that God does not exist.

3. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that the First Vision never occurred.

4. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that there is no life after death.

5. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that the witness of the Spirit is explainable
purely by mechanistic, neurobiological processes.

6. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that Book of Mormon peoples never existed.


We could go on and on, but what is the point? We've been arguing falsification with the secularists here since the beginning. What will be different about this thread?

Oh well. OK Tal, draw...

[_John Larsen]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could be falsified if:


1. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.
Done.

2. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that God does not exist.
Can't be done.

3. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that the First Vision never occurred.
Can't be done, but is implied in #1 & #4.

4. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that there is no life after death.
Done.

5. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that the witness of the Spirit is explainable
purely by mechanistic, neurobiological processes.
Done.

6. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that Book of Mormon peoples never existed.
Done.

We could go on and on, but what is the point? We've been arguing falsification with the secularists here since the beginning. What will be different about this thread?

Oh well. OK Tal, draw...

[_RockHeaded]

Um, did I miss something or was there supposed to be content with your post Larsen? As I see it saying something has been done doesn't mean it actually has. More evidence is needed in order to take your 'Done' seriously.

[_Coggins7]

You see, this is what you get. Why bother?

Serious, critical debate?

One could become quite cynical about this entire affair, that is, the whole apologetic exercise. There is a famine in the land, not of water, but of serious, critical debate, as Tal would have it.

John, you cannot, and will not, be taken seriously after this initial performance, so take your bow and exit, stage left...

[_Coggins7]

To wit: please, no silly, simplistic "feethinker" religion debunking here. This thread is for, as Tal has requested, serious, rational debate.

Could we keep it on that plane...just for once...pleeeeeeeeeeeeease?

[_moksha]

I think the pursuit of a belief system can exist totally independent of the veracity of the back story. What need is there for the back story to be true? It is the wisdom, happiness, support and comfort that by themselves make the belief system worthwhile.

[_John Larsen]

John, you cannot, and will not, be taken seriously after this initial performance, so take your bow and exit, stage left...

Taken seriously by whom?

Let's look at your number 4:

4. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that there is no life after death.

1. We have clearly defined what a living thing is, as well what a dead thing is.
2. We have established that thought and other living processes for higher organisms originate with the brain.
3. When a living thing dies, the brain will cease to function, producing no thought or other output; a dead thing has no thoughts.
4. All cellular activity, and any other living process associated with that living thing will cease.
5. The being will rot, and in a short time and the constitute parts will cease to be a recognizable whole.

Which one of those do you think is worthy of equivocation, or is not empirically established?

The point of my post is that you are trying to open for debate things that rational, empirically based thought has already dismissed as not possible or unmeasurable.

When you are done with those, you can try to prove to me that Thor's hammer is not made of zinc.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]
5. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner, that the witness of the Spirit is explainable
purely by mechanistic, neurobiological processes.
[...]

Although I (currently) believe the spiritual witness received by LDS adherents has efficacy, I also think it is brought about purely through biological processes.

I don’t think this would falsify Mormonism.

G-d works in natural ways, yadda, yadda, yadda...

[_Mercury]

You see, this is what you get. Why bother?

Serious, critical debate?

One could become quite cynical about this entire affair, that is, the whole apologetic exercise. There is a famine in the land, not of water, but of serious, critical debate, as Tal would have it.

John, you cannot, and will not, be taken seriously after this initial performance, so take your bow and exit, stage left...

Why so angry Cogs? Is it because you were given clear answers to your humorous attempts at telling us to prove a negative?

[_Mercury]

To wit: please, no silly, simplistic "feethinker" religion debunking here. This thread is for, as Tal has requested, serious, rational debate.

Could we keep it on that plane...just for once...pleeeeeeeeeeeeease?

you are a parody of anti-freethought.