Falsification of the Mormon Church

[_Coggins7]

7. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner that the Book of Mormon was not translated by Joseph Smith from Gold Plates and that it was a fabrication produced by Rigdon and others.

Would that work, Loran?

Of course it would.

[_Jersey Girl]

7. It could be shown in an unequivocal, empirical manner that the Book of Mormon was not translated by Joseph Smith from Gold Plates and that it was a fabrication produced by Rigdon and others.

Would that work, Loran?

Of course it would.

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

[_Canucklehead]

Religion is about much more fundamental truths; the truths of who we are, why we are here, and the nature of our ultimate destiny.

I'd say that's what philosophy is about. Most religion is about forcing dogma on people in an effort to gain power over them.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

More philosophically simplistic Romper Room scientism. I should thank John for making this so easy. These kinds of traditional materialist arguments are fairly easy to poke in the eye, so I won't take too much bandwidth here in doing so.

Just briefly:

1. We have clearly defined what a living thing is, as well what a dead thing is.
2. We have established that thought and other living processes for higher organisms originate with the brain.
3. When a living thing dies, the brain will cease to function, producing no thought or other output; a dead thing has no thoughts.
4. All cellular activity, and any other living process associated with that living thing will cease.
5. The being will rot, and in a short time and the constitute parts will cease to be a recognizable whole.

[/quote]

Yes but, what does any of this have to do with whether or not individual existence and consciousness continues after the physical organism ceases metabolic processes?
[/quote]

individual existence and consciousness is a property of the physical organism. You're question is the same as asking if a tree keeps growing after it is cut down.

The above statement may be a philosophical or metaphysical statement, but, within the context that John means it, is not a scientific one. This is little more than a faith based metaphysical assertion that belies an implied world view if carried any farther than an assertion about the physical organism itself. In other words, all science can say is that (let's leave the term "existence" out of this for a moment, as John has gone into en empty pool here using this term to define physical life, i.e., "metabolism") life, defined as empirically discernible metabolic processes, and consciousness are properties of physical organisms. It can say nothing about forms of life, or metabolization, outside the limits of, or, within the precincts of, other states of levels of "life", of which it has no knowledge. Any claim that no such other levels or planes of existence exist is not a scientific one but is, in its most fundamental form, a metaphysical claim that leaps and bounds far beyond actual scientific knowledge.

In other words, science can say, "Individual existence and consciousness is a property of the physical organism" (and it is, of course, correct) but it cannot say anything, in any ultimate sense, about either existence or consciousness as such. This is important. Observing that individual existence and consciousness is a property of some other contingent condition (the mortal body, which dies and decomposes) tells us nothing regarding what other conditions might obtain in the universe under which individual existence and consciousness might exist, independent of and unconnected to the contingencies and associative phenomena we observe in mortality (the only phenomena science has the tools to comprehend and study).

The fact then, that individual existence and consciousness is a property of physical organisms neither conceptually nor logically sets any absolute limit on the ultimate nature of individual existence and consciousness. Any scientist who wishes to make statements about such should be clear when doing so that he is dabbling in philosophy and metaphysics, and has left science aside for the moment.

Unfortunately, Sagan, Dawkins, and a number of others do not seem capable (or willing) to make these distinctions.

2. We have established that thought and other living processes for higher organisms originate with the brain.

We have established no such thing, if by this you mean it has been established that thought is nothing more than a function of brain activity. We know that thought is associated with the brain and the parts of the brain where thoughts of various kinds appear to be generated. But if the brain is only a transducer for the mind, and not the mind itself, your entire argument falls apart. Unfortunately, neuroscience does not have, as you claim, anything to say empirically about what mind is or regarding its origin.

[/quote]

I can quickly prove my point with a scalpel.

Again, if the brain is nothing more than a transducer for mind and consciousness, your entire argument here evaporates (in fact, your entire world view). Unfortunate for scientism, science has no answer to that question. The Gospel does, and there are tests through which one can know for oneself the truth of it, or not.

[_Coggins7]

I'd say that's what philosophy is about. Most religion is about forcing dogma on people in an effort to gain power over them.

One of the briefest and most succinct statements of the philosophy of Korihorism I've ever seen. There are other names for this, but, we'll forgo that for now.

[_Coggins7]

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....

[_Jersey Girl]

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....

Yes, there is.

[_Coggins7]

No Jersey, there is not.

Been there too, done that too...over and over and over through the years and decades. The Church will, indeed stand, and falsehoods like those which you are now preparing to foist will collide with reality at some point.

[_wenglund]

Sure, apologists for the Book of Mormon "see things differently" the way young earthers "see things differently".

The combination of the "loose translation" theory which (supposedly) renders irrelevant serious anachronisms in the text and the willingness to creatively reinterpret what the Book of Mormon text says results in an unfalsifiable text, as far as being a genuine ancient Mesoamerican document is concerned.

You can read my website for more detailed explanation of these points.

John Clark asserted that he's tried to convince his colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican document to no avail, because they read it like an archaeological text. Clark asserts that one must get a testimony FIRST, and then the evidence will become clear. This means that the evidence, in and of itself, is unconvincing. The "spirit" must do the convincing first, and then one will find evidence to support that belief. This speaks volumes.

The Book of Mormon contains enough background information that one can reasonably construct a picture of what that civilization looked like. This can be reasonably compared to what we do know about ancient Mesoamerica. If a text is proposed to originate from a certain time period, scholars can reasonably judge whether or not that is the case. In other words, it can be falsified. For the defense of the Book of Mormon to rest on creating an unfalsifiable text indicates an awareness that the Book of Mormon would fail if measured in the same manner that other texts that claim to be ancient are measured.

I can see how the "loose translation" theory, and LDS apologetic textual interpretations that differ from your opinion, can make it more difficult for you and others to falsify the Book of Mormon. But, difficulty in falsification does not render something unfalsifiable. For those LDS apologist who view the Book of Mormon as a translation of an ancient text, written by physical people, and contains a history of physical people, their belief qualifies as falsifiable--as falsibiable as any claimed historical document.

Where it becomes unfalsifiable, is with those who believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction--which, to my knowledge, isn't the prevailing theory among LDS apologists, if at all.

I still am unclear, though, 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? Why is "seeing things differently" from you necessarily "not good"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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.

What do you attribute it to?

I'm cool with not knowing. There's lots I don't know. I've gotten used to it. :)

I attribute feeling God to my brain chemistry.

You bring up an issue that is of interest to me. I admittedly am feeling too sick today to engage at length but having said that, I think you're talking about what people describe as brains being hardwired for God belief and that sort of thing. I often think of it as simply intuition. That is to say, that some of us intuit God.

Here is my question though, what about those who attribute God belief or God "sensing" to brain chemistry, who lose their belief in God? Does that mean that their brain chemistry changed and how does that loss of belief impact those who believe or think there is a God gene?

I hope that made some kind of sense but I don't expect to make much sense today. Could be a good topic for a thread. I won't initiate it today though since I don't think I have the wherewithal to see it through at the moment.

Sorry you're sick. by the way, I don't give a crap I'm off-topic on Coggins thread.

I lost my belief in God cause I recognized God didn't do anything. :) I still felt God -- and that bugged the hell out of me. For 32 years, in fact. Not anymore.