Religious Claims Cannot Be Falsified

[_Buffalo]

That is how faith is both a conclusion and evidence. There is nothing circular there. Its experiential.

Stem, this is circular reasoning, by DEFINITION.

I can see I was right about you. You left logic behind because you never understood it.

[_Darth J]

This thread is hilarious. It started with Darth J doing a Book of Abraham parody and ends with Joseph and Brigham young as gay lovers. Meanwhile, stemelbow is mad because millions of people believe Mormonism so it must be true.

The meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers were to create a secret code so Joseph Smith could encipher his love letters to Brigham Young.

[_Buffalo]

It's interesting to note that Joseph Smith never said a WORD against homosexuality.

[_Buffalo]

This thread is hilarious. It started with Darth J doing a Book of Abraham parody and ends with Joseph and Brigham young as gay lovers. Meanwhile, stemelbow is mad because millions of people believe Mormonism so it must be true.

The meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers were to create a secret code so Joseph Smith could encipher his love letters to Brigham Young.

Darth J has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea the KEP have anything to do with the Book of Abraham, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

[_DarkHelmet]

It's interesting to note that Joseph Smith never said a WORD against homosexuality.

That is very telling. The evidence is really starting to add up.

[_Darth J]

Oh, then I simply misunderstood. I assumed that you felt that the claims of the LDS Church had superior truth value to the claim that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were gay lovers. What you're really saying is that these claims are on equal footing as far as their respective truth values.

Your misunderstanding gets worse. Indeed I did not make any judgments at all as to the value of any propisitions.

Stemelbow, when I say that you're saying that two different propositions are on equal footing, it means that you have not made any judgment at all as to which has greater truth value.

Uh huh. Anyway, how is it that one determines whether his "experiences" are being interpreted accurately?

I suppose various people have different ways of going about this.

What about seeing if our interpretation of our experiences is consistent with external reality? Would that be a valid way of going about this?

How does one know, independent of the Church's ipse dixit about what these "experiences" mean, that the Church is right about what those experiences mean?

Knowledge isn't as easily attained as some presume.

Who are the "some" who presume this?

The experiences are up to personal interpretation. and surely, as such, some people misinterpret. That's not to suggest that any who rely on experiences to guide create faith are somehow wrong though.

And what, if anything, would suggest that the interpretation of those experiences is wrong, since you allow that such experiences can be misinterpreted?

"Faith is based on something" is a different proposition than "faith is evidence." If "faith is based on something," then faith is a conclusion based on evidence (evidence being the "something"). But you have also said that faith is evidence. If faith is both evidence and a conclusion, then this is all just circular reasoning.

Faith is many things. It can be both a conclusion and evidence for things. An experience is first hand evidence. Faith, as evidence, is also first hand evidence. Experiences help to create faith, faith helps to support belief. So while evidence (experiences) help create faith, evidence (faith) helps to support belief, or certain propisitions in belief.

This is a completely meaningless statement. "I have faith that faith is the faith of faith in my faith." That's what you're saying. Don't blame me if you don't like to see it spelled out.

So how do you know that when the Church tells you that your "experience" means that there really was a vast pre-Columbian civilization of Christian Hebrews in the western hemisphere, the Church is right about what your experience means?

That question is quite loaded. The Church didn't tell me anything about my experiences.

Oh, then I should have clarified that when I said "the Church," I meant "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Because that church DOES tell people what their experiences mean.

Book of Mormon: Introduction

We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10:3–5.)

Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah.

Trust me, I get it now. What you're saying is that faith is evidence, faith is a conclusion, and faith is the way to interpret faith.

No. you don’t get it. AH well.

"Faith is many things. It can be both a conclusion and evidence for things."

I will now stop trying to be charitable and assuming that there must be something other than circular reasoning going on.

Here I’ll help ya out by explaining more.

[/snip]

That is a false analogy. Here is a relevant one:

Two 20 year-old boys come to your house and tell you that they have a sacred book that has a divine message from God. The book says that we should be honest and virtuous, that we should treat other people kindly. However, the book is based on the premise that Rodney Dangerfield is a Martian who became the President of the United States. The boys tell you to pray about the book.

You read some parts from the book about kindness and compassion to others, pray about it, and feel very strongly that God wants us to act the way the book tells us to.

A couple days later, you tell the two boys that you had this experience. The boys tell you this is proof that the book is a true story.

Should you now accept as fact the proposition that Rodney Dangerfield was a Martian who became the President of the United States?

[_stemelbow]

That is a false analogy. Here is a relevant one:

Two 20 year-old boys come to your house and tell you that they have a sacred book that has a divine message from God. The book says that we should be honest and virtuous, that we should treat other people kindly. However, the book is based on the premise that Rodney Dangerfield is a Martian who became the President of the United States. The boys tell you to pray about the book.

You read some parts from the book about kindness and compassion to others, pray about it, and feel very strongly that God wants us to act the way the book tells us to.

A couple days later, you tell the two boys that you had this experience. The boys tell you this is proof that the book is a true story.

Should you now accept as fact the proposition that Rodney Dangerfield was a Martian who became the President of the United States?

That doesn't correlate at all with my experiences and that which makes up my faith.

This here is for you and Buffalo. it appears to me this analogy applies to the way you guys are going about this (I’m like unto James and you and Buffalo are like unto the other people):

James claims he spoke with someone named jeremy. Upon hearing James' claim other folks doubt that James could have spoken with Jeremy. These other folks say, “you must support your claim that you spoke with jeremy or we will reject it”.

James replies, “well I spoke with him. What are you looking for?”

Other people: “ tell us someone who saw you or heard you speak with him”

James: “no one else was there”.

Other people: “then get us Jeremy to ask him”

James: “Jeremy has since passed on”

Other people: “since you can’t prove your claim we know it didn’t happen”

James: “alright. Go on disbelieving then.”

Other people: “all you have is your claim that you spoke with him. Its circular for you to say you spoke with him and then offer your own claim as the reason for us to believe it”.

James: “alright. Don’t believe me then.”

Other people: “But that’s circular reasoning. You don’t have anything but your own claim that you spoke with Jeremy. Look I can say some guy is a martian. See? I now you must concede that you are wrong or something.”

James: “thanks guys.”

Other people: “You aren’t even logical at all. You can’t even see that your claim for believing you spoek with Jeremy is circular”

James: “Whateves. Take care.”

Other people: “You’re messed up if you really think you spoke with Jeremy. I mean my goodness you can’t even show me nuttin’ that demonstrates that this speaking ever took place.”
James: “peace to your heart”
Other people: “I used to think I spoke with Jeremy too, but now I realize its all just a big ol’ figment of my imagination.”

James: “uh…alright. So you never did speak with him. What do I care?”

Other people: “that means you didn’t speak with him either. I mean if I once felt like I did, but now I have concluded I didn’t that means you didn’t. You see I was confused and thought I did. Now you are confused and thought you did.”

James: “nah..I actually did speak with him”

Other people: “how can you say that? You can’t even show me that you did. You only say you did. That’s so circular. I’m sick of it”

[_Sophocles]

If Jeremy lived and died then there will be records of such. Evidence for the existence of Jeremy would support the possibility of your having conversed with him.

Unless Jeremy is the name of an invisible pink unicorn, I don't see how this analogy applies to your recent statements regarding faith and evidence.

[_just me]

The Church stands or falls on certain propisitions but not on all propisitions.

Hello,

Could I get a list of the propositions upon which the church stands or falls?

Thank you kindly,

jm

[_Buffalo]

That is a false analogy. Here is a relevant one:

Two 20 year-old boys come to your house and tell you that they have a sacred book that has a divine message from God. The book says that we should be honest and virtuous, that we should treat other people kindly. However, the book is based on the premise that Rodney Dangerfield is a Martian who became the President of the United States. The boys tell you to pray about the book.

You read some parts from the book about kindness and compassion to others, pray about it, and feel very strongly that God wants us to act the way the book tells us to.

A couple days later, you tell the two boys that you had this experience. The boys tell you this is proof that the book is a true story.

Should you now accept as fact the proposition that Rodney Dangerfield was a Martian who became the President of the United States?

That doesn't correlate at all with my experiences and that which makes up my faith.

This here is for you and Buffalo. it appears to me this analogy applies to the way you guys are going about this (I’m like unto James and you and Buffalo are like unto the other people):

James claims he spoke with someone named jeremy. Upon hearing James' claim other folks doubt that James could have spoken with Jeremy. These other folks say, “you must support your claim that you spoke with jeremy or we will reject it”.

James replies, “well I spoke with him. What are you looking for?”

Other people: “ tell us someone who saw you or heard you speak with him”

James: “no one else was there”.

Other people: “then get us Jeremy to ask him”

James: “Jeremy has since passed on”

Other people: “since you can’t prove your claim we know it didn’t happen”

James: “all right. Go on disbelieving then.”

Other people: “all you have is your claim that you spoke with him. Its circular for you to say you spoke with him and then offer your own claim as the reason for us to believe it”.

James: “all right. Don’t believe me then.”

Other people: “But that’s circular reasoning. You don’t have anything but your own claim that you spoke with Jeremy. Look I can say some guy is a martian. See? I now you must concede that you are wrong or something.”

James: “thanks guys.”

Other people: “You aren’t even logical at all. You can’t even see that your claim for believing you spoek with Jeremy is circular”

James: “Whateves. Take care.”

Other people: “You’re messed up if you really think you spoke with Jeremy. I mean my goodness you can’t even show me nuttin’ that demonstrates that this speaking ever took place.”
James: “peace to your heart”
Other people: “I used to think I spoke with Jeremy too, but now I realize its all just a big ol’ figment of my imagination.”

James: “uh…all right. So you never did speak with him. What do I care?”

Other people: “that means you didn’t speak with him either. I mean if I once felt like I did, but now I have concluded I didn’t that means you didn’t. You see I was confused and thought I did. Now you are confused and thought you did.”

James: “nah..I actually did speak with him”

Other people: “how can you say that? You can’t even show me that you did. You only say you did. That’s so circular. I’m sick of it”

This is why I say you never understood logic, as your reasoning here very poor indeed.

If you wanted to make this an accurate analogy, you'd need to include the following details.

1) That you'd never heard Jeremy's voice nor seen his face
2) That your conversations with Jeremy all took place in your own private thoughts - your part of the conversation was in words, and Jeremy's "responses" consisted of feeling you felt in your heart, or perhaps thoughts that later occurred to you
3) That our response was your assertion to believe that Jeremy exists, backed up by the evidence that you believe, is circular
4) That there is no independent, verifiable information confirming that Jeremy is a real person