Religious Claims Cannot Be Falsified

[_stemelbow]

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.

I believe you are missing the point of my analogy. Analogies often aren't perfect. If my faith is based on my personal experience and i'm unable show anyone the reason for my faith, then there is nothing but my own experience to support my own claim to it. If the conversation took place, as the analogy suggests,and I have no evdeince to support it, it does not stand to reason that the conversation did not take place.

[_Buffalo]

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

LOL, the ultimate moving target!

[_Buffalo]

If the conversation took place, as the analogy suggests,and I have no evdeince to support it, it does not stand to reason that the conversation did not take place.

And now we return to the thread title. :)

[_stemelbow]

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.

Oh brother. Here we go around and around...

1) That you'd never heard Jeremy's voice nor seen his face

That's not the analogy. The experience is in question here. The conversation is the corrolary of my spiritual experience. That's not to say my spiritual experience equates to a conversation with someone. Sheesh...

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

You are trying to change it from not being a analogy but a parallel event. Open up a little.

3) That our response was your assertion to believe that Jeremy exists, backed up by the evidence that you believe, is circular

The question of Jeremy's existence isn't up for debate in the analogy. I think you've misunderstood.

4) That there is no independent, verifiable information confirming that Jeremy is a real person

Yep, you've misunderstood. its an analogy, Buffalo, not a hypothetical story that details the exact events that we're discussing.

[_just me]

Our whole eternal life hangs upon if we ignore all evidence to the contrary and just believe what we are told by other fallible humans. That seems just, fair and reasonable.

How are we supposed to figure out which fallible humans are correct?

[_Buffalo]

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.

Oh brother. Here we go around and around...

1) That you'd never heard Jeremy's voice nor seen his face

That's not the analogy. The experience is in question here. The conversation is the corrolary of my spiritual experience. That's not to say my spiritual experience equates to a conversation with someone. Sheesh...

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

You are trying to change it from not being a analogy but a parallel event. Open up a little.

3) That our response was your assertion to believe that Jeremy exists, backed up by the evidence that you believe, is circular

The question of Jeremy's existence isn't up for debate in the analogy. I think you've misunderstood.

4) That there is no independent, verifiable information confirming that Jeremy is a real person

Yep, you've misunderstood. its an analogy, Buffalo, not a hypothetical story that details the exact events that we're discussing.

Stem, I would submit that you don't understand the purpose of an analogy - it isn't to try to inflate your position, but to accurately illustrate it.

A great analogy would be the story of a child and his imaginary friend, Sam, and their many conversations together.

[_schreech]

If my faith is based on my personal experience and I'm unable show anyone the reason for my faith, then there is nothing but my own experience to support my own claim to it.

Nobody has said otherwise.

If the conversation took place, as the analogy suggests,and I have no evdeince to support it

Ok, the sentence starts off ok....

it does not stand to reason that the conversation did not take place.

I am guessing basic logic is not one of your strengths.

[_stemelbow]

Our whole eternal life hangs upon if we ignore all evidence to the contrary and just believe what we are told by other fallible humans. That seems just, fair and reasonable.

How are we supposed to figure out which fallible humans are correct?

What a weird way to view it. As it is I don't think "our whole eternal life hangs upon if we ignore the evidence to the contrary and just believe what we are told by other fallible humans".

Just settle down a little. The important things are to learn to love others, embrace the notion of joining together in unity combatting evil designs and enjoying the true concept of love. If ya get that kind of thing down, then perhaps you'll begin to see our whole eternal life hangs far more upon our ability to love than our ability to trust whether someone is telling us the truth about some random topic or bit of history.

[_DarkHelmet]

The important things are to learn to love others, embrace the notion of joining together in unity combatting evil designs and enjoying the true concept of love.

You really think that's what Mormonism is about? It sounds more like a hippie commune.

[_stemelbow]

You really think that's what Mormonism is about? It sounds more like a hippie commune.

huh? I said our eternal destiny is very much dependent on our ability to love, far more than what Just me claimed. Neither of us said anything about what Mormonism is about.

Mormonism is about spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ (attempting to embrace more of humanity), maintaining that Christ is the LORD and Savior of us all. And that by living His teachings we can learn more about the God above and eternity as we learn to love others and focus our attention on doing good.