Falsification of the Mormon Church

[_beastie]

Now to the second question: Is the Book of Mormon falsifiable or not?

Let me know when you've read the pages I linked for you on my website: power and polities, and holy lord. They answer your question and demonstrate exactly how the Book of Mormon can be falsified.

[_Canucklehead]

Once more for old times' sake.

It is "not good" because it indicates the theory has already been falsified.

In other words, it smacks of post hoc propping up of claims which have been previously debunked.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Good. Then copy the above and keep it somewhere handy. You're gonna need it as a reminder.

Been there, done that. 15, 20, 25 years ago. The Book of Mormon...and Joseph, have so far survived all the attempts to do this, and there's nothing new under the sun.

Yawn....

If Joseph Smith has really survived all attempts to disprove him, don't you think there would be a few more people who actually believe him? The number of people who believe his claims, and believe the Book of Mormon to be true, is pathetically small. The vast majority of people don't believe Joseph Smith's claims. I would hardly say he has survived all attempts to disprove him. I imagine FLDS members probably believe Warren Jeffs has survived all attempts to disprove his claims too. Just because you believe it doesn't believe it hasn't been disproven. Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon have been about as discredited as anything can be.

[_wenglund]

This explains who may believe it is "not good", but it doesn't explain why it is "not good", and thus doesn't answer my question.

Once more for old times' sake.

It is "not good" because it indicates the theory has already been falsified.

So, again, to you, an unfalsifiable theory is "not good" because "it indicates the theory has already been falsified.".

Do you think that makes sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Now to the second question: Is the Book of Mormon falsifiable or not?

Let me know when you've read the pages I linked for you on my website: power and polities, and holy lord. They answer your question and demonstrate exactly how the Book of Mormon can be falsified.

I will be pleased to do so, if necessary, once you have answered my preliminary question: "So, Beastie, could you please clarify what type of "falsifiability" you have in mind?"

By the way, I just did a word search of both those articles and found not a single instance of the words falsifiable, or falsified, or false.

However, from what little I did read (particularly the bolded portions at the end), those portions took the form of inductive arguments, rather than observational/factual disputes or modus tollens. Is that characteristic of the remainder of those articles? I ask because, if so, this give me at least some hint of what you mean by "falsified" (not to be confused with "falsifiable").

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Once more for old times' sake.

It is "not good" because it indicates the theory has already been falsified.

In other words, it smacks of post hoc propping up of claims which have been previously debunked.

Kind of like the post hoc hypothesis called "quantum leaps" used to prop up evolution once the linear notion of natural selection was "debunked" by critics noting complex and interdependant structures such as woodpecker beaks and the human eye?

Is that "not good"?

Besides, as I am in the process of demonstrating, depending upon the type of logic employed (deductive or inductive), "falsified" or "debunked" is in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-