Falsification of the Mormon Church

[_Coggins7]

Some have, though, errantly supposed that the notion of "unfalsifiable" is the arbiter of what's "not good".

Exactly, and this is is a feature of scientism, not science as a practice or knowledge acquiring. methodology.

The secularists here require a sign; they would rather God had left some mathematical equations for quantum theory or a diagram of the double helix than the Ten Commandments. But of course, those equations and diagrams would have demanded nothing further from us, especially morally or ethically...

[_beastie]

One question first, wade - do you understand that Ben's point was that the Book of Mormon is falsifiable, and was quick to distance himself (and Brant) from the white crow argument?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Nobody move, I just lost a contact lens.

[_Jersey Girl]

Nobody move, I just lost a contact lens.

lol

:-)

[_cinepro]

Some have, though, errantly supposed that the notion of "unfalsifiable" is the arbiter of what's "not good".

Exactly, and this is is a feature of scientism, not science as a practice or knowledge acquiring. methodology.

The secularists here require a sign; they would rather God had left some mathematical equations for quantum theory or a diagram of the double helix than the Ten Commandments. But of course, those equations and diagrams would have demanded nothing further from us, especially morally or ethically...

Honestly, if the faithalists didn't make claims about evidences appearing and disappearing (liahona, breastplate, cement box, sword of laban, Golden Plates), the lack of evidence would be a lot easier to accept.

[_BishopRic]

Some have, though, errantly supposed that the notion of "unfalsifiable" is the arbiter of what's "not good".

Exactly, and this is is a feature of scientism, not science as a practice or knowledge acquiring. methodology.

The secularists here require a sign; they would rather God had left some mathematical equations for quantum theory or a diagram of the double helix than the Ten Commandments. But of course, those equations and diagrams would have demanded nothing further from us, especially morally or ethically...

Honestly, if the faithalists didn't make claims about evidences appearing and disappearing (liahona, breastplate, cement box, sword of laban, Golden Plates), the lack of evidence would be a lot easier to accept.

The whole paradigm of "testing man's faith" by bizarre trickery makes no sense to me when the same "God" says "He" wants all of us to return to "Him" by learning all about him. Shouldn't I use the brain that "He" gave to me?

[_Coggins7]

The whole paradigm of "testing man's faith" by bizarre trickery makes no sense to me when the same "God" says "He" wants all of us to return to "Him" by learning all about him. Shouldn't I use the brain that "He" gave to me?

That, however, would require a level of intelligence somewhat above that of a small slice of sponge cake.

[_Tori]

The whole paradigm of "testing man's faith" by bizarre trickery makes no sense to me when the same "God" says "He" wants all of us to return to "Him" by learning all about him. Shouldn't I use the brain that "He" gave to me?

That, however, would require a level of intelligence somewhat above that of a small slice of sponge cake.

I guess that's a little hard for you to understand, isn't it Coggins. You being the sponge cake that your are.

[_beastie]

That was great, and very helpful--particularly Dr. Peterson's point about the crows, and Ben's point about "unfalsifiable"--which to me illustrate the difference between what is theoretically falsifiable vs what in practice is falsifiable. While it theoretically posible to survey all crows that lived in Isreal back in the day, it is not possible in practice because we can't go back in time, and even if we could, it would not be practical to survey all crows then. So, in terms of practice, the very nature of the Book of Mormon renders much, though not all, of it unfalsifiable (not to be confused with LDS apologists rendering it unfalsifiable).

The problem is that the “nature” of the Book of Mormon does not render it unfalsifiable at all. There is plenty of background information given, notably about the power and complexity of the polities therein (lamanite and nephite). These polities are fairly complex with layers of bureaucracy and political control over other complex polities. While we don’t know everything about ancient Mesoamerica, we do know what kind of polities existed during the specified time period. The type of polity described in the Book of Mormon would have been one of the most powerful polities of the period.

I provided many details and references to back up this assertion on this particular page of my website:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesandpower.htm

This means that this polity would not be so minimal as to be undetectable. The only way apologists make it so is by reinterpreting the Book of Mormon in ways that strain the imagination.

An additional problem is that in ancient Mesoamerica, as in most cultures, the most powerful polities strongly influenced the behavior of other polities. The idea that this powerful Book of Mormon polity is not only undetectable, but had zero influence on the rest of Mesoamerica is, literally, unbelievable. I go into extensive details here:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/holylord.htm

Ben is schooled enough to realize that rendering the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable is “not a good thing”. As I already said, and provided a popper quote to demonstrate, if a theory that is actually falsifiable – as the Book of Mormon is – is manipulated by its defenders to make it unfalsifiable, that is a sign that the theory already failed. That is why Ben vigorously fought my accusation. He did not approve of Dan’s “White Crow” theory. I wonder how carefully you read the thread that you seem to have missed that.

[_Jason Bourne]

So far none of the things you list above have been empirically proven by those who make the claim. They are matters of faith.

The final collapse comes. Jason now demonstrates here...finially, that he is really no more a Latter Day Saint than is Harmony, whether or not either of them are members in name.

No Coggins not at all. But I can tell you this thread of yours proves what fricking idiot you are as well as an embarrasment to the Church you attempt to defend.

Whether this was witting or unwitting, I have no idea.

And one wonders as well whether you wittingly or unwittingly continue to stoop to level devoid of intellect, thought as well as compassion and caring. You sir do more damage to the Church than my more fringe views ever could. Carry on with your asinine stupidity. Nothing new to see here.