Noah's Ark questions

[_EdGoble]

That would depend on the religious hypothesis/assertion. Claims that God exists are extremely vague and undefined such that science is not interested in such a claim, but say the Book of Mormon is about a real people or that Joseph translated Egyptian writing is something science can address.

Actually, science can only say that it has no evidence for it. It cannot invalidate it. It cannot prove the negative, and to claim that it does is fallacious.

It can only make the case that there is lack of evidence at this time. And so, it is very common for those who are not religious to seize upon that. But that just proves that they are impatient and unwilling to wait for the evidence to eventually come out.

The classic case is the guy that tried to use lack of evidence of cement against Heber J. Grant. President Grant simply stated that he didn't care if the evidence manifested itself in the time of his children or great grandchildren, but that it eventually would appear. Sure enough, his prophecy was fulfilled. And the same will be so with the rest. So when Mormons do eventually find evidence for one thing, Anti-Mormons just go on to the next item on the list and say, "see, no evidence for this yet." The irony of the situation is that the days for this kind of thinking are numbered, because time is on the side of the Mormons.

[_EdGoble]

Then by all means, go ahead. Your standing with the Mormon Transhumanist Association is certainly more important than the judgment of the Nobel Committee.

I'm not an MTA member anymore. But sure. Since the accolades of mortal men are not what I seek after, then yes, my friendships with other Mormons does mean more to me than that.

[_Themis]

I see dark matter being deployed in a God of the gaps way, an argument from ignorance.

I can see why you would try to make that claim, but actually, my dark-matter spirit argument is so brilliant that I anticipate that many Mormon Transhumanists will adopt it as a preferred hypothesis to their monist viewpoints.

I can see why you think it is brilliant, because it will be popular with those who really believe we have a spirit, but it has zero evidence. Now we don't know enough about dark matter, but what if we eventually do know enough to actually test for it's presence? If we don't see any inside humans, will you just come up with some new hypothesis. This is the problem with pseudoscience. They like to hypothesize even though it they don't have any evidence to begin with, while real scientific hypothesis are almost always based on some evidence. This is why your hypothesis is not science.

[_Maksutov]

That would depend on the religious hypothesis/assertion. Claims that God exists are extremely vague and undefined such that science is not interested in such a claim, but say the Book of Mormon is about a real people or that Joseph translated Egyptian writing is something science can address.

Actually, science can only say that it has no evidence for it. It cannot invalidate it. It cannot prove the negative, and to claim that it does is fallacious.

And how many fallacies are we supposed to accept in order to become Mormons? Let's start with Moroni's promise. Really, Ed. You can try and have special pleading for everything Mormon but it won't work. That's why the church feels like it's in a state of siege. Science DOES have evidence for things that directly contradict Mormonism, including the archaeological record. You can't say that science has no evidence there was no garden of Eden; actually it does. Likewise, the nonexistence of global flood, the ancient Adam and Eve story, Noah, on and on. Those stories have actually been disproven as having happened. Maybe you can claim that they happened in a universe made of dark matter, but they didn't happen here. Sorry. You haven't found a way to distinguish baby from bath water yet. Save the good things in Mormonism and let go of the old myths. They just alienate many of your best and brightest people.

You weren't reasoned into Mormonism, so I don't expect that reason will take you out. You can do as other religious groups do, double down on the ritual observances, pray more. Fill your mind with church images and words and maybe you will keep out the doubts. Or not.

[_EdGoble]

I can see why you think it is brilliant, because it will be popular with those who really believe we have a spirit

yes

, but it has zero evidence.

Well, the idea of dark matter atoms and dark chemistry is predicted in an actual scientific hypothesis by actual scientists as I showed in the link I provided. This is not scientific evidence, but it is nice where things are going with it.

Now we don't know enough about dark matter, but what if we eventually do know enough to actually test for it's presence?

Well of course, that is a problem for science to figure out.

If we don't see any inside humans, will you just come up with some new hypothesis.

Yes.

This is the problem with pseudoscience.

No, that is just the nature of all areas of inquiry, including science. There are many abandoned scientific hypotheses that turned out incorrect.

They like to hypothesize even though it they don't have any evidence to begin with, while real scientific hypothesis are almost always based on some evidence.

Actually they are not. They are based on things that are merely empirically suggestive not proven. Religious hypotheses are similarly based on things that are suggestive. Not always empirically suggestive, but religiously suggestive nonetheless.

This is why your hypothesis is not science.

I didn't say it was, but its not totally my hypothesis. I gave you an actual scientific hypothesis about a dark matter realm based on dark atoms which has its origin among scientists. And I simply came up with a religious hypothesis that is compatible with that, but that didn't claim to be scientific.

[_Quasimodo]

Actually, science can only say that it has no evidence for it. It cannot invalidate it. It cannot prove the negative, and to claim that it does is fallacious.

It can only make the case that there is lack of evidence at this time. And so, it is very common for those who are not religious to seize upon that. But that just proves that they are impatient and unwilling to wait for the evidence to eventually come out.

The classic case is the guy that tried to use lack of evidence of cement against Heber J. Grant. President Grant simply stated that he didn't care if the evidence manifested itself in the time of his children or great grandchildren, but that it eventually would appear. Sure enough, his prophecy was fulfilled. And the same will be so with the rest. So when Mormons do eventually find evidence for one thing, Anti-Mormons just go on to the next item on the list and say, "see, no evidence for this yet." The irony of the situation is that the days for this kind of thinking are numbered, because time is on the side of the Mormons.

Science cannot invalidate leprechauns, unicorns, fairies or centaurs. It's still the smart way to bet that they never existed. The fact that there is no evidence for them is a very good reason to not believe in them.

Time is not on the side of Mormons. Every month that goes by there is some new, verifiable evidence that emerges that makes the Book of Mormon histories less likely or even impossible.

You are whistling in the dark, my friend.

[_Themis]

That would depend on the religious hypothesis/assertion. Claims that God exists are extremely vague and undefined such that science is not interested in such a claim, but say the Book of Mormon is about a real people or that Joseph translated Egyptian writing is something science can address.

Actually, science can only say that it has no evidence for it. It cannot invalidate it. It cannot prove the negative, and to claim that it does is fallacious.

That depends on the claim. God is not defined such that you can always find a gap to put it in. Other claims like God is in the form of a physical elephant living atop Mount Rainier can be. Lack of evidence here is evidence against the claim being true.

It can only make the case that there is lack of evidence at this time. And so, it is very common for those who are not religious to seize upon that. But that just proves that they are impatient and unwilling to wait for the evidence to eventually come out.

Not sure why people should be patient that we will see evidence of Bigfoot really exists. I suspect you don't think we should believe it and be patient for evidence, so why should we with other things like God, Xenu, Marvin the Martian, etc.

The classic case is the guy that tried to use lack of evidence of cement against Heber J. Grant. President Grant simply stated that he didn't care if the evidence manifested itself in the time of his children or great grandchildren, but that it eventually would appear. Sure enough, his prophecy was fulfilled. And the same will be so with the rest. So when Mormons do eventually find evidence for one thing, Anti-Mormons just go on to the next item on the list and say, "see, no evidence for this yet." The irony of the situation is that the days for this kind of thinking are numbered, because time is on the side of the Mormons.

The cement things does not matter since that is an idea from Joseph's Smith time, so it fits with Joseph making up the Book of Mormon story. What I like to look at is whether good evidence for a defined claim is growing for or against the claim. In the case of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham it is growing against the claims. DNA is a huge one most don't understand.

[_Maksutov]

Actually, science can only say that it has no evidence for it. It cannot invalidate it. It cannot prove the negative, and to claim that it does is fallacious.

Hare Krishnas are required to pray 1,780 times per day in order to maintain their beliefs--their "Krishna consciousness". To me it looks like OCD and dementia given a religious twist, but it does allow them to believe that the Earth is flat and the Moon is farther away than the Sun. What are you prepared to do, Ed?

[Guest]

And how many fallacies are we supposed to accept in order to become Mormons?

Why would you want to be a Mormon. I like you the way you are. You are a hoot.

Let's start with Moroni's promise. Really, Ed. You can try and have special pleading for everything Mormon but it won't work.

Why? It works for me.

That's why the church feels like it's in a state of siege.

Does it? Only one family in my ward has apostatized over the Google Apostasy. There are others that are affected, but they are still active.

Science DOES have evidence for things that directly contradict Mormonism, including the archaeological record.

Temporarily.

You can't say that science has no evidence there was no garden of Eden; actually it does.

Actually, no, they haven't done an archaeological dig yet at the temple site at Jackson County :)

Likewise, the nonexistence of global flood,

Not a problem.

the ancient Adam and Eve story, Noah, on and on.

Seldom does science have anything to say about specific people in history.

Those stories have actually been disproven as having happened.

I can see why you think that way.

Maybe you can claim that they happened in a universe made of dark matter, but they didn't happen here. Sorry. You haven't found a way to distinguish baby from bath water yet. Save the good things in Mormonism and let go of the old myths. They just alienate many of your best and brightest people.

Actually, a science-friendly Modified Mormonism is precisely that.

You weren't reasoned into Mormonism, so I don't expect that reason will take you out.

It doesn't generally take people out that take the spirit for their guide. Yes. You are right.

You can do as other religious groups do, double down on the ritual observances, pray more. Fill your mind with church images and words and maybe you will keep out the doubts. Or not.

Yes, it will do us well to be more consistent with our obedience, but the obedience only helps us have the spirit. It doesn't help us with information that is needed to create an environment where faith can thrive. That is what good apologetics is for, but in saying this, I do not mean to say that all apologetics as it currently exists is in a good state, or that FAIRMormon is always a very good source. Rather, I mean to say that once we actually start getting rid of bad apologetics, then faith will continue to thrive. Not all people will want to remain, because they won't be willing to stay just because of apologetics. But again, it will create the environment where some will be willing to continue in faith. They are the ones we hope to stay. For those that won't, I wish them well, but I can't help them if they choose to not listen to the spirit.

[_EdGoble]

Science cannot invalidate leprechauns, unicorns, fairies or centaurs. It's still the smart way to bet that they never existed. The fact that there is no evidence for them is a very good reason to not believe in them.

No, it is only a temporary impatient place to be for those who don't want to exercise faith and belief. There are some things like unicorns that even for Mormons are manifestly false. I realize that for you, the Book of Mormon fits in that category. That is ok.

Time is not on the side of Mormons. Every month that goes by there is some new, verifiable evidence that emerges that makes the Book of Mormon histories less likely or even impossible.

You are whistling in the dark, my friend.

Glad you consider me a friend. Glad to know you.