Which LDS Truth Claims are Falsifiable?

[Analytics]

Let's assume, for a moment, that: 1) there is a God; 2) He actually does answer Priesthood Blessings as He sees fit; and 3) He is aware of the performance of such an experiment. Given that God has, repeatedly, told His children to TRUST HIM, why would He perform like a trained monkey in this clear effort to "tempt God"?

Thatâ??s more special pleading.

People who believe that the earth is 6,009 years old do the same thing. Show them dinosaur bones, and theyâ??ll either say that the dinosaurs died in the flood or that they were placed there by Satan. After all, how could I prove that Satan DIDNâ??T put them there?

When it comes to religion, a justification can be made for just about anything.

[DrW]

DrW, you seem to consistently fail to understand that the "Mormon principle" that God works according to natural law does not mean that God can't do anything not understood by current science.

I invoked Clarke's laws on another thread - specifically the idea that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic - and you failed to see the relevence. Allow me to try to explain again.

God has a far deeper understanding of natural law then we do. He knows ways around them that we do not. He is what Clarke described as "sufficiently advanced" for what He can do to appear to be magic to us, even though it does not in fact break natural laws. Faster-than-light travel, mana from the sky, the liahona, these things are not magic in the sense that they break natural laws - they obey natural laws but operate on principles not yet fully understood by our current science.

Jason,

I am sorry to say this, but such statements clearly indicate magical thinking. By your logic, nothing would be "impossible". By your logic, the problem is we just don't know enough science yet to understand how impossible things can be done in accordance with natural law and science.

We are here to discuss falsifiability. By your criteria, few if any propositions would be objectively falsifiable.

The principle of falsifiability was adopted to protect science and logic from magic and magical thinking.

Sorry, objection rejected.

[ttribe]

Thatâ??s more special pleading.

People who believe that the earth is 6,009 years old do the same thing. Show them dinosaur bones, and theyâ??ll either say that the dinosaurs died in the flood or that they were placed there by Satan. After all, how could I prove that Satan DIDNâ??T put them there?

When it comes to religion, a justification can be made for just about anything.

No...the situation I gave you is a specified characteristic of Priesthood Blessings (as outlined in LDS theology). You are the one who is seeking to put such "blessings" into a box which will make it subject to being "programmed, categorized, or easily referenced...." In doing so, you are stripping the concept of its key characteristics.

[Jason]

Jason,

I am sorry to say this, but such statements clearly indicate magical thinking. By your logic, nothing would be "impossible". By your logic, the problem is we just don't know enough science yet to understand how impossible things can be done in accordance with natural law and science.

No, my logic does not lead to the idea that "everything is possible." It is that I have a trustworthy source who reports that these events occurred, therefore I am not ready to declare them impossible or in violation of natural law.

A scientist who receives a trustworthy report will not conclude that the reported event is impossible until he has duplicated every aspect of the report and failed to duplicate the reported results, and he even then may continue to question the reporter until he is convinced that he has in fact accurately duplicated the method without reproducing the results.

To use an example, we have no description of how exactly God produced glowing stones - what phsyical laws were at work or what energy source was used. We have what the brother of Jared observed only.

We therefore have no way to determine what methods were at work in the production of the glowing stones, and therefore no way to duplicate them and determine if the methods used can in fact produce glowing stones.

We therefore cannot say with any certainty that the reported results did not occur. We simply do not have enough information as to how they were produced to make that determination.

The idea that "God must have used irradiated materials to produce them" is a straw man. Saying that God must operate within natural laws does not mean that He must use techniques we are currently aware of.

We are here to discuss falsifiability. By your criteria, few if any propositions would be objectively falsifiable.

The principle of falsifiability was adopted to protect science and logic from magic and magical thinking.

Sorry, objection rejected.

Was Clarke attempting to illustrate that nothing is objectively falsifiable, or did he have something else in mind? Are you only seeing what you want to see?

[DrW]

No, my logic does not lead to the idea that "everything is possible." It is that I have a trustworthy source who reports that these events occurred, therefore I am not ready to declare them impossible or in violation of natural law.

A scientist who receives a trustworthy report will not conclude that the reported event is impossible until he has duplicated every aspect of the report and failed to duplicate the reported results, and he even then may continue to question the reporter until he is convinced that he has in fact accurately duplicated the method without reproducing the results.

To use an example, we have no description of how exactly God produced glowing stones - what phsyical laws were at work or what energy source was used. We have what the brother of Jared observed only.

We therefore have no way to determine what methods were at work in the production of the glowing stones, and therefore no way to duplicate them and determine if the methods used can in fact produce glowing stones.

We therefore cannot say with any certainty that the reported results did not occur. We simply do not have enough information as to how they were produced to make that determination.

The idea that "God must have used irradiated materials to produce them" is a straw man. Saying that God must operate within natural laws does not mean that He must use techniques we are currently aware of.

Was Clarke attempting to illustrate that nothing is objectively falsifiable, or did he have something else in mind? Are you only seeing what you want to see?

Jason, we are here to discuss how "trustworthy" your information source really is. If you have already decided that anything you read in LDS scripture is true, then why even visit this thread?

Think about this. Let's assume that you were in a science class at a major university and were assigned a paper on cosmology. Would you simply quote Genesis and reference the OT in response? Of course not. You realize that these writings are not useful as science. They are not accepted as scientifically or logically valid. To the vast majority scientists, they are traditional stories and fairy tales.

Much scripture is falsifiable. When scripture provides supposed information about how the world works, and the world is shown not to work that way, the scripture stands falsified. Thus, the creation story, worldwide flood, etc are known to be fiction (have been falsified).

Much of Mormon scripture is falsifiable, and much has been falsified. It may not have been falsified in your mind. But to the vast majority of those who have considered its claims and checked them against what is known about history and science, they are falsified.

This is because Joseph Smith had quite an imagination and made God a being of flesh and bones and then proceeded to make up all kinds of fantastical and falsifiable stories to put in his scriptures. Thus we get the anachronisms of the Book of Mormon, Kolob cosmology, scripture from funerary texts, the Book of Ether, etc.

I simply selected one of the more fantastical stories to illustrate the point.

If you wish, you are welcome to go through the Book of Ether example, point by point ,and provide plausible alternatives as to how this journey may have been accomplished. I suggest you start with the thought experiment of launching eight wooden poles at any point accessible to the "Jaredites" in the Eastern hemisphere and describing how they would drift in a group to any place in the western hemisphere.

[ttribe]

In order to show to a certainty that some, if not all, of the events described in the Book of Mormon can only be fiction, one needs to make some best case assumptions (that is, assumptions as favorable as possible to the claim that the stories in the books describe real events). Then one must show why it is not possible for these events to have happened as described, given those favorable assumptions (or any other non-magical assumptions for that matter).

[A whole bunch of stuff snipped for brevity's sake]

Conclusion: The Book of Ether is both Falsifiable and Falsified: This analysis shows that because of many factors, and beyond any reasonable doubt, based on hard sciences including oceanography, geography, meteorology, physics and chemistry, the ocean crossing of the Jaredites described in the Book of Ether must be judged as fiction, and bad fiction at that.

My, my, you must have been saving that one up for a while...just waiting for the day you could break it out and show us just how "stupid" we are...I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that someone might have already thought of this stuff before...for example: FAIR Link

Nevertheless, your fatal flaw is that nothing you have shown is actually falsified. Your assertion presupposes that the existence of an all-powerful God has already been falsified and that such a being could not have assisted in otherwise extraordinary circumstances. Furthermore, your appeals to the "hard sciences" seems to be one that includes an assumption that some things (including those described in the Book of Ether) are conclusively impossible...I'm not sure the hard sciences allow for such absolutes, but you seem to want to take that as a given.

[AndyOne]

My, my, you must have been saving that one up for a while...just waiting for the day you could break it out and show us just how "stupid" we are...I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that someone might have already thought of this stuff before...for example: FAIR Link

Nevertheless, your fatal flaw is that nothing you have shown is actually falsified. Your assertion presupposes that the existence of an all-powerful God has already been falsified and that such a being could not have assisted in otherwise extraordinary circumstances. Furthermore, your appeals to the "hard sciences" seems to be one that includes an assumption that some things (including those described in the Book of Ether) are conclusively impossible...I'm not sure the hard sciences allow for such absolutes, but you seem to want to take that as a given.

You do realize that this article does nothing to address the concerns raised in DrW's post.

[ttribe]

You do realize that this article does nothing to address the concerns raised in DrW's post.

"Concerns"? Are you serious?

Anyway, it is a single article that talks about the plausibility of ancient transoceanic voyages (which the good Dr seems to be sneering at in his verbose post) and it took me 10 seconds to find, that was my only point with providing the link.

[AndyOne]

"Concerns"? Are you serious?

Anyway, it is a single article that talks about the plausibility of ancient transoceanic voyages (which the good Dr seems to be sneering at in his verbose post) and it took me 10 seconds to find, that was my only point with providing the link.

It's virtually entirely non-responsive to his post.

[DrW]

My, my, you must have been saving that one up for a while...just waiting for the day you could break it out and show us just how "stupid" we are...I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that someone might have already thought of this stuff before...for example: FAIR Link

Nevertheless, your fatal flaw is that nothing you have shown is actually falsified. Your assertion presupposes that the existence of an all-powerful God has already been falsified and that such a being could not have assisted in otherwise extraordinary circumstances. Furthermore, your appeals to the "hard sciences" seems to be one that includes an assumption that some things (including those described in the Book of Ether) are conclusively impossible...I'm not sure the hard sciences allow for such absolutes, but you seem to want to take that as a given.

Welcome to the distinguished group of magical thinkers here assembled.

If you insist on invoking a God who is supernatural, then you are proposing a God that is not consistent with the teachings of the prophets, who claim that God works by natural law. You would be better of to join Jason and talk about a God who can make the impossible happen through "natural" means.

Think about what you are saying. According to you, anything you wish to believe can be removed from the realm of the falsifiable simply by claiming the supernatural. This is no way to put your beliefs to any kind of logical or rational or objective test. By this, you retreat to magic, fantasy and superstition.

[ttribe]

Welcome to the distinguished group of magical thinkers here assembled.

If you insist on invoking a God who is supernatural, then you are proposing a God that is not consistent with the teachings of the prophets, who claim that God works by natural law. You would be better of to join Jason and talk about a God who can make the impossible happen through "natural" means.

Think about what you are saying. According to you, anything you wish to believe can be removed from the realm of the falsifiable simply by claiming the supernatural. This is no way to put your beliefs to any kind of logical or rational or objective test. By this, you retreat to magic, fantasy and superstition.

Are you stating that all things classified in nature and the sciences includes a subcategory we could, as laymen, label as "impossible"?

[DrW]

My, my, you must have been saving that one up for a while...just waiting for the day you could break it out and show us just how "stupid" we are...I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that someone might have already thought of this stuff before...for example: FAIR Link

.

ttribe,

Either you did not read the FAIRS article you cited, or you did not read my original post. The FAIRS article you cited addresses none of my points. In fact it specifically talks about surface rafts with rudders that are powered by sails on journeys of no more than a couple of hundred miles in relatively friendly seas.

The Jaredite vessels had no sails or other power of any kind, and yet we are told they crossed thousands, or tens of thousands, of ocean miles in constant winds (i.e. rough seas). Sea state is the product of "wind over water". That is, the longer the wind blows the rougher the seas become. Constant wind means increasingly rough seas.

Here is an example. I often sail in the Gulf stream. In a constant north wind of 15-20 knots (far below storm force winds at about 35 knots, or so) the seas can get to 10-12 feet in a hurry. Can you imagine being pounded continuously by 10-12 foot waves for 344 days?

The reason the piece is long is because I tried for a long time to find a way that the Jaredite story could be true. The more I learned, and especially the more sailing experience I gained, the more improbably (and then ridiculous), the story became.

[DrW]

Are you stating that all things classified in nature and the sciences includes a subcategory we could, as laymen, label as "impossible"?

No.

I am trying to illustrate that you are engaging in magical thinking or perhaps Orwellian "doublethink", wherein something can be simultaneoulsy "impossible" and "doable" through natural law.

Apparently, I am not doing too well.

[ttribe]

ttribe,

Either you did not read the FAIRS article you cited, or you did not read my original post. The FAIRS article you cited addresses none of my points. In fact it specifically talks about surface rafts with rudders that are powered by sails on journeys of no more than a couple of hundred miles in relatively friendly seas.

The Jaredite vessels had no sails or other power of any kind, and yet we are told they crossed thousands, or tens of thousands, of ocean miles in constant winds (i.e. rough seas). Sea state is the product of "wind over water". That is, the longer the wind blows the rougher the seas become. Constant wind means increasingly rough seas.

Here is an example. I often sail in the Gulf stream. In a constant north wind of 15-20 knots (far below storm force winds at about 35 knots, or so) the seas can get to 10-12 feet in a hurry. Can you imagine being pounded continuously by 10-12 foot waves for 344 days?

The reason the piece is long is because I tried for a long time to find a way that the Jaredite story could be true. The more I learned, and especially the more sailing experience I gained, the more improbably (and then ridiculous), the story became.

Geez...how many times do I have to say this - the article I linked was simply to demonstrate the plausibility of an ancient transoceanic voyage...that's it.

Regarding your issues with the "boats", you seem to be relying on folklore-level interpretations of the descriptions of the boats. First, the statement that the boats were sealed "tight like unto a dish" refers to their ability to keep water out, not their shape. Second, can you please show me where they specifically didn't have sails? Third, I happen to be familiar with a situation where an individual who had been a Scandinavian fisherman for 30+ years had many of the same engineering concerns you have and then, to test some of the ideas included in the Book of Ether, built his own model based on the descriptions and his own knowledge...guess what? It worked...really well, in fact. Finally, are you suggesting that there have been ZERO changes in oceanic currents in the THOUSANDS of years we are talking about here?

[ttribe]

No.

I am trying to illustrate that you are engaging in magical thinking or perhaps Orwellian "doublethink", wherein something can be simultaneoulsy "impossible" and "doable" through natural law.

Apparently, I am not doing too well.

Let's simplify then - how have the hard sciences (as you've termed them) concluded that the events, as outlined, are definitively and absolutely "impossible"?

[DrW]

Geez...how many times do I have to say this - the article I linked was simply to demonstrate the plausibility of an ancient transoceanic voyage...that's it.

Regarding your issues with the "boats", you seem to be relying on folklore-level interpretations of the descriptions of the boats. First, the statement that the boats were sealed "tight like unto a dish" refers to their ability to keep water out, not their shape. Second, can you please show me where they specifically didn't have sails? Third, I happen to be familiar with a situation where an individual who had been a Scandinavian fisherman for 30+ years had many of the same engineering concerns you have and then, to test some of the ideas included in the Book of Ether, built his own model based on the descriptions and his own knowledge...guess what? It worked...really well, in fact. Finally, are you suggesting that there have been ZERO changes in oceanic currents in the THOUSANDS of years we are talking about here?

My descriptions of the barges were taken directly from the Book of Ether and conform to the descriptions of these barges as offered by any number of Church leaders who have spoken on the subject. First of all they were barges. Barges, by definition, are unpowered water craft.

No sails are mentioned, and sails would have not been possible to operate with the crew sealed inside. Have you ever even been on a sailboat?

The only way your fisherman friend would have been able to show that his craft "worked" would have been to lanuch eight of them into the ocean the eastern hemisphere and retrieve all eight of them in the western hemisphere within 344 days. I can assure you that he did not do so. Nobody has, and nobody will.

And if you happen to be referring to the silly "Brother of Stephen" apologist video on U-Tube, don't get me started. Or if you wish, please confirm that you are referring to "Brother of Steve", and I will post the many reasons why his parlor trick is no solution to the problem.

[Jason]

If you wish, you are welcome to go through the Book of Ether example, point by point ,and provide plausible alternatives as to how this journey may have been accomplished. I suggest you start with the thought experiment of launching eight wooden poles at any point accessible to the "Jaredites" in the Eastern hemisphere and describing how they would drift in a group to any place in the western hemisphere.

Well, let's start with what is definitely God's work in the scriptural account.

1. The Lord commands the Brother of Jared to depart into the wilderness, and guided them through it "continually". (Ether 2)

It is during this journey that they acquire the experience in building barges mentioned. These barges were built to cross over bodies of water during the overland journey of the Jaredites.

So, the question of why there isn't evidence of other, similar barges in the old world misses the mark - the Jaredites acquired their skills in barge building while they were on their way "into that quarter where there never had man been." It seems quite possible, in fact, that the Lord also supplied the basic design for these barges, as He was leading them continually. When they reach the coast, the Lord directs them to build more barges similar to the ones they used over smaller bodies of water.

2. The stones to light the way (Ether 3)

How does the Lord prepare the stones? All we know is that the Brother of Jared observed Him touching them with his finger, one by one, and that they then gave off light. What else was done to them remains unsaid.

3. Did the Jaredites rely on oceanic currents to carry them to the New World?

No. "And it came to pass that the Lord God caused that there should be a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters, towards the promised land; and thus they were tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind...And it came to pass that the wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land while they were upon the waters; and thus they were driven forth before the wind. " (Ether 6)

4. How could these craft survive submersion and resurface?

Also expressly the work of the Lord: "..therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters."

5. What about keeping their food stores useful without fire?

Well, it's not explicitely part of the Jaredite account, but we find a possible explanation in the the Book of Nephi: "And so great were the blessings of the Lord upon us, that while we did live upon raw meat in the wilderness, our women did give plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men; and they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings. ...For the Lord had not hitherto suffered that we should make much fire, as we journeyed in the wilderness; for he said: I will make thy food become sweet, that ye cook it not;"

So, you miss the point in saying "this couldn't occur under normal conditions" - the crossing of the Jaredites to the Promised Land was specifically miraculous, helped on every step of the way by the Lord. Unless you can show that the methods the Lord used wouldn't produce the reported results - and you have to exactly duplicate those methods in order to show this - your criticisms are hollow.

[Pahoran]

In order to show to a certainty that some, if not all, of the events described in the Book of Mormon can only be fiction, one needs to make some best case assumptions (that is, assumptions as favorable as possible to the claim that the stories in the books describe real events). Then one must show why it is not possible for these events to have happened as described, given those favorable assumptions (or any other non-magical assumptions for that matter).

Excuse me, but I have already pointed this out to you: the term "magic" and its cognates is empty of meaning. Its sole function is as a pejorative. When you throw it into a discussion of someone else's faith, all you are doing is signalling that you are not discussing anything in good faith.

So I'm snipping it out, as the waste of bandwidth that it is.

Conclusion: The Book of Ether is both Falsifiable and Falsified: This analysis shows that because of many factors, and beyond any reasonable doubt, based on hard sciences including oceanography, geography, meteorology, physics and chemistry, the ocean crossing of the Jaredites described in the Book of Ether must be judged as fiction (and bad fiction at that).

Your "analysis" is flawed in a number of ways. If I thought you were really interested in learning anything contrary to your enormous prejudices, I'd point some of them out to you.

But I do have one question: from which dishonest anti-Mormon website did you crib this?

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

My descriptions of the barges were taken directly from the Book of Ether and conform to the descriptions of these barges as offered by any number of Church leaders who have spoken on the subject. First of all they were barges. Barges, by definition, are unpowered water craft.

By our modern definition, I suppose. But there's no room for a comparable description here...or even one based on a layman's knowledge?

No sails are mentioned, and sails would have not been possible to operate with the crew sealed inside.

So because none are mentioned, none must have been used? Why does the crew have to be sealed inside all the time in your interpretation of things?

Have you ever even been on a sailboat?

Of course...but I admit, I do live in Arizona...I'm something of a "land lover". Is there a reason you are treating me with contempt?

The only way your fisherman friend would have been able to show that his craft "worked" would have been to lanuch eight of them intp the ocean the eastern hemisphere and retrieve all eight of them in the western hemisphere within 344 days. I can assure you that he did not do so. Nobody has, and nobody will.

He wasn't my friend...he was taught (and baptized) by one of my Institute instructors many years ago...his principle concern was with the notion of a "hole" in the middle of the boat and the lack of a keel. In fact, he gave the model to this Instructor of mine and it was in his office...I even got to "handle it" and saw it with my "natural" eyes. Oh...and it had a sail.

And if you happen to be referring to the silly "Brother of Stephen" apologist video on U-Tube, don't get me started. Or if you wish, please confirm that you are referring to "Brother of Steve", and I will post the many reasons why his parlor trick is no solution to the problem.

I'm not...and frankly have no idea what you are talking about.

[DrW]

Let's simplify then - how have the hard sciences (as you've termed them) concluded that the events, as outlined, are definitively and absolutely "impossible"?

Taken as a group of events that comprise a narrative, the set of events described, as related to the claimed Jaredite ocean crossing, have an overall probability that is so (vanishingly) small that they can be considered impossible.

They were impossible in 2500 BC and they remain impossible today. Look at the ocean current maps. Ask any person with a technical background and ocean sailing experience (who is not a Mormon).

ETA: Actually in this case, considering the sanitation issues, I will state that the story is absolutely impossible (chances less than 1 in 10 exp 12 or so if one does the factor by factor Bayesian probability analysis that appears to be so popular here).

[ttribe]

Taken as a group of events that comprise a narrative, the set of events described, as related to the claimed Jaredite ocean crossing, have an overall probability that is so (vanishingly) small that they can be considered impossible.

Please define the overall probability...I have training and experience in statistical analysis...I promise I can follow your answer.

They were impossible in 2500 BC and they remain impossible today. Look at the ocean current maps. Ask any person with a technical background and ocean sailing experience (who is not a Mormon).

You were there in 2500 BC? Cool...I have a whole bunch of other questions for you. Okay, sarcasm aside, I have reason to experience at least some level of doubt regarding the veracity of a claim of absolute impossibility when dealing with the time periods we are discussing. The fact is, the further you go back, the greater your probability of error in your analysis.

[Jason]

Taken as a group of events that comprise a narrative, the set of events described, as related to the claimed Jaredite ocean crossing, have an overall probability that is so (vanishingly) small that they can be considered impossible.

Or miraculous.

[Lance in TX]

Jason,

I am sorry to say this, but such statements clearly indicate magical thinking. By your logic, nothing would be "impossible". By your logic, the problem is we just don't know enough science yet to understand how impossible things can be done in accordance with natural law and science.

We are here to discuss falsifiability. By your criteria, few if any propositions would be objectively falsifiable.

The principle of falsifiability was adopted to protect science and logic from magic and magical thinking.

Sorry, objection rejected.

Your objection is rejected as well.

The Earth was the center of the Universe. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Sponteaneous generation. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Nothing is smaller than an Atom. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Man could not go to the Moon. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Nothing is smaller than Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Should I continue.

As science progresses, what was thought of as "magic" or "impossible" is often proven possible and within the Laws of Nature. Usually it is proven possible by a more complete understanding of the natural laws.

(Corrected a couple of typos)

[ttribe]

Your objection is rejected as well.

The Earth was the center of the Universe. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Sponteaneous generation. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Nothing is smaller than an Atom. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Man could not go to the Moon. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Nothing is smaller than Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons. Proven false by greater knowledge.

Should I continue.

As science progresses, what was thought of as "magic" or "impossible" is often proven false. Usually it is proven false by a more complete understanding of the natural laws.

Awwww...you stole my punchline.

[Jason]

Awwww...you stole my punchline.

Arthur C. Clarke stole it in 1973.