Falsification of the Mormon Church

[_wenglund]

LDS truth claims, like those of likely all other religions, are a mix of purely spiritual assertions and temporal assertions. Whether or not a God exists is, by nature, not falsifiable, in my opinion, depending upon how one defines “God”. The theory of the existence of the Judeo Christian God cannot be falsified, because, by nature, that God could exist entirely outside our dimensions or awareness. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we can’t reasonably factor a like-lihood for such a theory.

Temporal claims are an entirely different story. These are claims that are soundly within our dimensions. The earth is 6,000 years old is a well-known example. This is a falsifiable claim. The Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican document. This is a falsifiable claim.

When theories are actually tested and falsified, people are often resistant to abandoning the theory, particularly if an emotional investment is involved. Sometimes they react by amending the theory with the deliberate aim of rendering it irrefutable. If a theory cannot be falsified, then it can no longer be called a scientific or logical theory. So when it is still “dressed up” as a scientific or logical theory, it may be correctly labeled “pseudo-science”.

I regard the fact that current Book of Mormon apologetics has rendered the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable as an indicator that apologists realize how weak their case is.

Whether or not a theory being unfalsifiable is not a good thing depends upon what kind of claim is being made. The Book of Mormon being rendered unfalsifiable is not a good thing, because of the nature of the claim being made, ie, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican document.

As I explained earlier, the use of ad hoc hypothesis may avoid falsification, and in that sense may be considered non-falsifiable. But, this is true of various scientific as well as non-scientific theories (some scientist view the theory of evolution in this way). Is this what you meant by "current Book of Mormon apologetics has rendered the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable"? In other words, could you clarify what you supposed are the ways in which Book of Mormon apologetics allegedly "rendered the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable"?

Could you also vet your argument for why you believe the alleged "rendering of the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable" suggest Book of Mormon apologists see there case as "weak", rather than simply that they see things differently from you?

And, could you explain what there is about "ancient Mesoamerican documents" that supposedly makes it "not good" when allegedly "rendered unfalsifiable", whereas the same cannot be said about other unfalsifiable assertions?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

I have to say Wade you do put up with a lot of crap from people. No one seems to be jumping in to reply to your post with respect and showing they understand the concepts which they are accusing you of not understanding. Other than EAllusion the majority seem to be rather arrogant and focus on attacking you rather than staying on topic.

Well, what exactly isn't crap about Wade's post? The whole notion is ridiculous, and should be treated with contempt because the idea he's putting forth is, in of itself, contemptible for the mental outlet it gives to the adherent.

Wade isn't the issue, he had a question, no one seems to be answering it. I don't think his question was ridiculous.

[_Sethbag]

Hmmmm. Gad took me to the woodshed years ago on ZLMB for claiming that one cannot prove a negative with respect to the fundamental assertions of Atheism (atheists assert that God does not exist) saying that this is a fallacious attack on atheist thought.

Now Tal and Seth both claim here that one cannot.

The plot thickens...

I don't claim that it's conclusively proven that there is no God. Dawkins doesn't either. What I do claim is, however, that there is nothing which requires a God to be explainable, and no evidence that there actually is a God. There's no evidence of reliable and credible communication between a God who might exist and mankind since we first became human , and therefor no evidence that if there actually is a God, he wants us to know about him. It simply doesn't look like there really is a God. God appears, in the end, to be a figment of mankind's imagination.

[_marg]

I don't claim that it's conclusively proven that there is no God. Dawkins doesn't either. What I do claim is, however, that there is nothing which requires a God to be explainable, and no evidence that there actually is a God. There's no evidence of reliable and credible communication between a God who might exist and mankind since we first became human , and therefor no evidence that if there actually is a God, he wants us to know about him. It simply doesn't look like there really is a God. God appears, in the end, to be a figment of mankind's imagination.

I don't know. I was watching lately the Planet Earth series on DVD and there are so many unique creatures living in inhospitable places even all seemingly interrelated to each other for survival. And it makes you wonder how on earth did they ever develop the various unique qualities. As a for instance, there was a worm which lives in a cave without light which makes hanging threads with its saliva to catch other insects. What's really interesting is at the end of its tail is a round glowing green light bulb. How on earth did a "cave glow worm ever evolve to having that light (which by the way attracts its prey). Unbelievable stuff.

[_GoodK]

I don't know. I was watching lately the Planet Earth series on DVD and there are so many unique creatures living in inhospitable places even all seemingly interrelated to each other for survival. And it makes you wonder how on earth did they ever develop the various unique qualities. As a for instance, there was a worm which lives in a cave without light which makes hanging threads with its saliva to catch other insects. What's really interesting is at the end of its tail is a round glowing green light bulb. How on earth did a "cave glow worm ever evolve to having that light (which by the way attracts its prey). Unbelievable stuff.

I love those Planet Earth shows! When I watch them, or recently when I was backpacking in Escalante, I am tempted to wonder how such beauty could exist without a creator. But I think attributing all the wonders of our planet to some sort of God figure degrades the beauty, wonder, and mystery of it all. It truly is a magnificent planet we live on.

I suddenly have the urge to watch old Captain Planet re-runs...

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't claim that it's conclusively proven that there is no God. Dawkins doesn't either. What I do claim is, however, that there is nothing which requires a God to be explainable, and no evidence that there actually is a God. There's no evidence of reliable and credible communication between a God who might exist and mankind since we first became human , and therefor no evidence that if there actually is a God, he wants us to know about him. It simply doesn't look like there really is a God. God appears, in the end, to be a figment of mankind's imagination.

I don't know. I was watching lately the Planet Earth series on DVD and there are so many unique creatures living in inhospitable places even all seemingly interrelated to each other for survival. And it makes you wonder how on earth did they ever develop the various unique qualities. As a for instance, there was a worm which lives in a cave without light which makes hanging threads with its saliva to catch other insects. What's really interesting is at the end of its tail is a round glowing green light bulb. How on earth did a "cave glow worm ever evolve to having that light (which by the way attracts its prey). Unbelievable stuff.

Your post made me think of this verse:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

I've been presented with so much stuff over the years on boards, replicators and all of that. But when I look at the natural world even outside of my own windows, I just cannot get over the seeming harmony of it all. Whether it is my lack of scientific understanding or my religious upbringing, nothing that has ever been presented to me regarding lack of a creator of some kind has ever changed my "belief" that a creator must have done this.

If that is magical thinking, I totally own it.

[_Moniker]

Huh. My magical thinking goes in the opposite direction. When I see beauty in nature I am awed by nature, and it alone.

[_Jersey Girl]

Huh. My magical thinking goes in the opposite direction. When I see beauty in nature I am awed by nature, and it alone.

What about the origins and development of what you see? You don't think about that?

[_beastie]

finally a chance to share my all-time favorite clip from planet earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgnOQqLhrlw

When I watch things like this, it "testifies" to me of the power of evolution. I mean, really. I think a godbeing pales in comparison.

[_Moniker]

Huh. My magical thinking goes in the opposite direction. When I see beauty in nature I am awed by nature, and it alone.

What about the origins and development of what you see? You don't think about that?

I don't attribute it to an invisible entity. Yet, I do wonder about it (and read up on it)-- just not in the realm of the supernatural.

~Edited to add~

It just occurred to me that I really am a heathen. Even as a child when I felt God I never attributed the world or human life to his making. God was just something I felt. So, if I was to all of a sudden look about and think God created anything that would be a huge leap from grounded to orbit.