Falsifying God? (Agnosticism)
Tony: (under "Horizontal Gene Transfer")Hrmm, but the concept of God, at least from my perspective, is falsifiable. Both by science, Archaeology, and Philosophy. I am not going to hijack this thread derailing into that statement, but yes, there is a means to falsify god, and ironically, God provides the means to falsify him. David: Please give us your approach. This is an instructional and learning website.-TONY: The Bible's claim is that it is 100% true. That gives three sets of predictions: The statements regarding science will be 100% accurate. The Statements regarding history will be 100% accurate. Neither one of those, in of itself prove anything divine, but they do build a record of reliability. The on the proves divine influence is prophecy. Since prophecy, particularly specific prophecies over large time scales have no rational explanation, a 100% accuracy rating is the test of falsifiability.-I have several problems with this line of argument. Firstly, although I can't argue with you about details of the prophecies, there are plenty of folk who can. I googled FALSE PROPHECIES BIBLE and found numerous websites. The most detailed was-	http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies-The tone is sometimes unpleasant, and some of the entries are pretty non-descript, but there are quite a few that run directly counter to what has actually happened. -Secondly, as we keep saying, the bible is a collection of books written by different authors. If a prophecy proves to be false, it will not falsify the concept of God. It will only falsify the claim of the particular author that God is speaking through him, and the claims of those who believe that the bible is the Word of God. So the concept of God can't be falsified in this way.-Thirdly, although in my view God's existence can't be falsified by prophecies, it could certainly be proven beyond any doubt: for instance if, as the Bible prophesies, the seven seals really are opened, God's chosen 144,000 male virgins really conquer the “beast”, Satan is imprisoned for a thousand years, God defeats the kings of the Earth, passes his judgement, and the old world is replaced by a new heaven and earth. However, I doubt if I shall be around, even if it happens.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Sunday, December 21, 2014, 15:58 (3625 days ago) @ dhw
Tony: (under "Horizontal Gene Transfer")Hrmm, but the concept of God, at least from my perspective, is falsifiable. Both by science, Archaeology, and Philosophy. I am not going to hijack this thread derailing into that statement, but yes, there is a means to falsify god, and ironically, God provides the means to falsify him. > David: Please give us your approach. This is an instructional and learning website. > > TONY: The Bible's claim is that it is 100% true. That gives three sets of predictions: > The statements regarding science will be 100% accurate. > The Statements regarding history will be 100% accurate. > Neither one of those, in of itself prove anything divine, but they do build a record of reliability. > The on the proves divine influence is prophecy. Since prophecy, particularly specific prophecies over large time scales have no rational explanation, a 100% accuracy rating is the test of falsifiability. > > I have several problems with this line of argument. Firstly, although I can't argue with you about details of the prophecies, there are plenty of folk who can. I googled FALSE PROPHECIES BIBLE and found numerous websites. The most detailed was > > 	http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies > -Well, just to start with the first one on that wiki page: -The City of Tyre -In 586 BC (confirmed by secular sources as the 11th year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah), "Ezekiel" predicts the fall of mainland Tyre to the Babylonian armies of Nebuchadnezzar. 5 The text further describes the siege against the island fortress of Tyre (a half mile off the coast of mainland Tyre) hundreds of years later. Ezekiel's prophecy describes how the future invaders would tear down the ruins of mainland Tyre and throw them into the sea. They would "scrape her dust from her and leave her as the top of a rock". 6 "They will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water." "I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets." 7 -Secular history records that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the great mainland city of Tyre about a year after Ezekiel's prophecy. The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 BC) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonian suzerainty." 8 When Nebuchadnezzar broke through the city gates, he found it nearly empty. Most of the people had moved by ship to an island about a half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 BC (Ezekiel's first prediction), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years. -Secular history next records that "Alexander the Great" laid siege to the island fortress of Tyre in 332 BC. His army destroyed the remains of mainland Tyre and threw them into the Mediterranean Sea. As Alexander's army constructed a causeway to the island, they scraped even the dust from the mainland city, leaving only bare rock. Historian Phillip Myers in his history textbook, General History for Colleges and High Schools, writes, "Alexander the Great reduced Tyre to ruins in 332 BC. Tyre recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now as bare as the top of a rock -- a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry." 9 - I know you don't do a tremendous amount of research regarding biblical prophecy, but as you tell me not to search fringe sites for real scientific research, I would tell you the same regarding bible research. Ezekiel 26, when read from the beginning explicitly states that "many nations" would assault Tyre, not just Babylon.-> > Secondly, as we keep saying, the bible is a collection of books written by different authors. If a prophecy proves to be false, it will not falsify the concept of God. It will only falsify the claim of the particular author that God is speaking through him, and the claims of those who believe that the bible is the Word of God. So the concept of God can't be falsified in this way.-That is what YOU claim, not what the Bible claims. There is a difference. The Bible claims to be the divinely inspired word of god. It either proves that claim, or the whole gig through its 100% accuracy or it falls apart. - > > Thirdly, although in my view God's existence can't be falsified by prophecies, it could certainly be proven beyond any doubt: for instance if, as the Bible prophesies, the seven seals really are opened, God's chosen 144,000 male virgins really conquer the “beast”, Satan is imprisoned for a thousand years, God defeats the kings of the Earth, passes his judgement, and the old world is replaced by a new heaven and earth. However, I doubt if I shall be around, even if it happens.-Yes, but you do realize that part and parcel to that is that if you do survive long enough to see that, which is not as far fetched as you might think, then the realization of God would be to your misery, not your delight.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 21, 2014, 17:37 (3625 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Just to hit a few more of the examples from your link:-Ezekiel 29 Regarding Egypt:-This can neither be definitively proven nor disproven yet, but we learn from Berosus that Nebuchadnezzar sent several captive Egyptians to Babylon; and from Megasthenes, that he transplanted others to Pontus; and it is probable, that at the dissolution of the Babylonian empire, about forty years after, Cyrus permitted them to return to their native country. There are historical records to indicate this was fulfilled, but nothing concrete yet. We know for a fact Egypt was conquered as foretold, by the people it was foretold they would be conquered by. The only part lacking documentation is the "desolation" aspect. -Though there is some evidence for it in the Chronicles of John, Bishop of Nikiu, CHAPTER LI.: -Under Triumph of Judah-This is a case of poor scholarship on the part of the Author. The beginning of Isaiah 7 is an offer of assistance from Jehovah, but in 7:10-12 his help is rejected:-10 Jehovah continued speaking to A?haz: 11 “Ask for a sign from Jehovah your God;+ it may be as deep as the Grave* or as high as the sky.” 12 But A?haz said: “I will not ask, nor will I put Jehovah to the test.”-The rest of Isaiah 7 is Jehovah saying what will happen because of that rejection, and so it came to pass just as it was said.- Isaiah predicts the Nile drying up, Sea draining: Future Prophecy-Failure to smite Jebus: This was not a prophecy but a conditional promise to the Israelites. They were told that they would be victorious against the Canaanite nations as long as the kept their end of the deal. They were supposed to erradicate the Canaanite's, instead, they took women to marry and began following their gods.-I would suggest a better body of scholarly work if you are looking for failed prophecies. As far as sources go, that wiki is pretty poor.- Just to give some context to this discussion, the bible and its prophecies works remarkably like science. In science, you make a hypothesis which will in turn make predictions. Predictions in science generally come in two flavors, the low hanging fruit that is easily testable and the larger predictions that either have not or can not be tested yet. -Prophecy works much the same way. Prophecies generally contain what are known as a minor and major fulfillment. The minor fulfillment, like the low hanging fruit in a scientific hypothesis, is generally easily tested and used to provide assurance of the larger fulfillment of the prophecy. -For example, the destruction of Egypt that the wiki was discussing. The minor fulfillment was regarding Egypt being conquered by Babylon. The major fulfillment is about an event that has not yet come to pass. Think of this like the hypothesis of Gravity. The low hanging fruit is to test the weight of something hear on Earth. The larger fulfillment is how it affects the celestial bodies, their orbits and rotations, and the way it bends light.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Falsifying God?
TONY: I know you don't do a tremendous amount of research regarding biblical prophecy, but as you tell me not to search fringe sites for real scientific research, I would tell you the same regarding bible research. -A case of mistaken identity here. As a non-scientist I would never have told you not to search fringe sites for real scientific research, and frankly I don't know which sites are fringe and which are mainstream. Nor would I know what criteria one might adopt in order to distinguish the “fringe”, especially when it comes to subjects as controversial as religion. However, I really didn't mean to cause you additional work refuting this particular website, though I appreciate the trouble you've gone to. It is clear from your response that certain prophecies “can neither be definitively proven nor disproven yet” (Ezekiel and Egypt, Isaiah and the Nile), and that is a pretty clever way to maintain a 100% record: it might not have happened yet, but it will. Of course that was my point in choosing Revelations.-dhw: Secondly, as we keep saying, the bible is a collection of books written by different authors. If a prophecy proves to be false, it will not falsify the concept of God. It will only falsify the claim of the particular author that God is speaking through him, and the claims of those who believe that the bible is the Word of God. So the concept of God can't be falsified in this way. TONY: That is what YOU claim, not what the Bible claims. There is a difference. The Bible claims to be the divinely inspired word of god. It either proves that claim, or the whole gig through its 100% accuracy or it falls apart. -You seem to think the Bible exists independently of the people who wrote it. Who claims that the Bible is the word of God? The individual authors may claim it, and the various assemblies of self-appointed editors with their own agendas may have claimed it. And maybe they were all as human and fallible as the rest of us. But your point was that God's existence could be falsified if inaccuracies were found in the Bible, and I am actually defending the theist viewpoint here! I am arguing that inaccuracies would not make a blind bit of difference to the case for God's existence. They would only falsify the claim that the Bible was the Word of God.-dhw: Thirdly, although in my view God's existence can't be falsified by prophecies, it could certainly be proven beyond any doubt: for instance if, as the Bible prophesies, the seven seals really are opened, God's chosen 144,000 male virgins really conquer the “beast”, Satan is imprisoned for a thousand years, God defeats the kings of the Earth, passes his judgement, and the old world is replaced by a new heaven and earth. However, I doubt if I shall be around, even if it happens. TONY: Yes, but you do realize that part and parcel to that is that if you do survive long enough to see that, which is not as far fetched as you might think, then the realization of God would be to your misery, not your delight.-I do think it's far fetched, but I'm consoled by the fact that as my resident biblical expert, you have assured me there is no such place as hell. In that case, if your interpretation is correct, I shall be condemned to everlasting peace. That's not so terrible. TONY: Just to give some context to this discussion, the bible and its prophecies works remarkably like science. In science, you make a hypothesis which will in turn make predictions. Predictions in science generally come in two flavors, the low hanging fruit that is easily testable and the larger predictions that either have not or can not be tested yet. Prophecy works much the same way. Prophecies generally contain what are known as a minor and major fulfillment. The minor fulfillment, like the low hanging fruit in a scientific hypothesis, is generally easily tested and used to provide assurance of the larger fulfillment of the prophecy.-We have spent many hours discussing the various scientific theories that relate to a future or a past that none of us can ever see. Your prophecies do indeed work in much the same way. We might literally have to wait an eternity before we can say, as you do, that God's existence can be falsified through the prophecies.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 22, 2014, 17:36 (3624 days ago) @ dhw
A case of mistaken identity here. As a non-scientist I would never have told you not to search fringe sites for real scientific research, and frankly I don't know which sites are fringe and which are mainstream. Nor would I know what criteria one might adopt in order to distinguish the “fringe”, especially when it comes to subjects as controversial as religion. -(It was something you and David both told me when I first joined this site.) You would use the same as you would use for any other research: cited sources, references, related research. Religious researchers still use best practices for citing sources. Its the mark of a good academic. - >DHW:It is clear from your response that certain prophecies “can neither be definitively proven nor disproven yet” (Ezekiel and Egypt, Isaiah and the Nile), and that is a pretty clever way to maintain a 100% record: it might not have happened yet, but it will. Of course that was my point in choosing Revelations. > -There is a difference between "can not at this moment" and "never can be". For a long time people thought that the names and places that Luke wrote about did not exist because there was no evidence for them. Later, archaeologist discovered evidence of virtually every single one of his references with exact matches for date and location. That same has been true for numerous instances of things that were disbelieved about the bible. -Archaeology, as a science is relatively young. When I said it can not be proven, perhaps I should have added the word "yet".--> dhw: Secondly, as we keep saying, the bible is a collection of books written by different authors. If a prophecy proves to be false, it will not falsify the concept of God. It will only falsify the claim of the particular author that God is speaking through him, and the claims of those who believe that the bible is the Word of God. So the concept of God can't be falsified in this way.-If not god in its entirety, at least the biblical Judeo-Christian hypothesis of God could be. The same could be applied to any religion. There are multiple hypothesis regarding the nature of the universe, just as there are regarding god. Can't we simply treat all theories with the same methods and follow the ones that provide the best evidence?-->DHW: You seem to think the Bible exists independently of the people who wrote it. Who claims that the Bible is the word of God? The individual authors may claim it, and the various assemblies of self-appointed editors with their own agendas may have claimed it. And maybe they were all as human and fallible as the rest of us. But your point was that God's existence could be falsified if inaccuracies were found in the Bible, and I am actually defending the theist viewpoint here! I am arguing that inaccuracies would not make a blind bit of difference to the case for God's existence. They would only falsify the claim that the Bible was the Word of God. > -The bible, as a whole, is either the divine inspired word of God, or it isn't. It cross-references itself repeatedly, forward and backwards via prophecy, across more than a millenia and so can not be divided into multiple books. It is A book. That is why all scholars treat it as A book instead of the books. Yes, we recognize that individual people pinned it, but the bible is actually explicitly clear when the author was adding his or her own opinion to it. Which was excruciatingly rare.- >DHW: I do think it's far fetched, but I'm consoled by the fact that as my resident biblical expert, you have assured me there is no such place as hell. In that case, if your interpretation is correct, I shall be condemned to everlasting peace. That's not so terrible. > -Not as far fetched and not as far off as you might like to believe. No man knows the day nor hour, but there were a large number of prophecies that provided a sort of virtual timeline that could be followed. ->DHW: We have spent many hours discussing the various scientific theories that relate to a future or a past that none of us can ever see. Your prophecies do indeed work in much the same way. We might literally have to wait an eternity before we can say, as you do, that God's existence can be falsified through the prophecies.-Fortunately, prophecy is much more reliable than that, in most regards. For example, there were numerable prophecies which pointed to specific dates in recorded history that were perfectly accurate in their time lines. Including prophecies that ran right into the 20th Century....down to the very year WWI broke out.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Falsifying God?
Dhw: It is clear from your response that certain prophecies “can neither be definitively proven nor disproven yet” (Ezekiel and Egypt, Isaiah and the Nile), and that is a pretty clever way to maintain a 100% record: it might not have happened yet, but it will. Of course that was my point in choosing Revelations. TONY: When I said it can not be proven, perhaps I should have added the word “yet”.-As you can see, you did add it, and this by coincidence puts you in the same position as Dawkins, who hopes and I'm sure also believes that eventually we shall understand and “embrace...within the natural” “phenomena that we don't yet understand”. (The God Delusion, p. 14) The little word “yet” clearly implies that it will happen, and it gives you both an indefinite period to prove your point. You both have a similar faith in a future that will confirm your beliefs. DHW: Secondly, as we keep saying, the bible is a collection of books written by different authors. If a prophecy proves to be false, it will not falsify the concept of God. It will only falsify the claim of the particular author that God is speaking through him, and the claims of those who believe that the bible is the Word of God. So the concept of God can't be falsified in this way. TONY: If not god in its entirety, at least the Judeo-Christian hypothesis of God could be. The same could be applied to any religion. There are multiple hypothesis regarding the nature of the universe, just as there are regarding god. Can't we simply treat all theories with the same methods and follow the ones that provide the best evidence?-The problem is that atheists and Jews and Christians and Muslims and Hindus all claim that their theory provides the best evidence. But belief in the Judeo-Christian God does not have to depend on the literal truth of every word in the Bible. Many Jews and Christians, for instance, regard the story of Adam and Eve as just that - a symbolic piece of fiction. And if a prophecy were to fail (unlikely unless it actually specifies a date), I really can't believe all Christians would turn round and say that in that case they don't believe in God or Jesus. -TONY: The bible, as a whole, is either the divine word of God, or it isn't.-One might say of all religions and of atheism: either they are true or they are not. You believe that the prophecies in the bible prove that every word in it is the literal truth, and that all the authors and the people who selected their texts were directly inspired by the God in whom the authors and the selectors believed. As you point out under “Different in degree or kind”, “that is certainly your right as a human with free will.”. Perhaps we should leave it at that.-A few weeks ago, I was accosted in the street by two charming young Mormon ladies who were pleasantly surprised that I had some knowledge of Joseph Smith. They were thus able to skip the preliminaries and go straight for the jugular: either he was a fraud, a madman, or he was telling the truth. Which did I think was correct? Bearing in mind the circumstances of his “revelation”, I'd be interested to know how you would have answered.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, December 24, 2014, 14:44 (3622 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Wednesday, December 24, 2014, 14:51
TONY: When I said it can not be proven, perhaps I should have added the word “yet”. > > As you can see, you did add it, and this by coincidence puts you in the same position as Dawkins, who hopes and I'm sure also believes that eventually we shall understand and “embrace...within the natural” “phenomena that we don't yet understand”. (The God Delusion, p. 14) The little word “yet” clearly implies that it will happen, and it gives you both an indefinite period to prove your point. You both have a similar faith in a future that will confirm your beliefs.-Unlike Dawkins, I am not saying it lightly. Historically, people have questioned the bibles legitimacy concerning historical events and it has repeated been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true, and verified independently by third party sources no less. Even the event in dispute here is partially verified. It is only one small detail that has, of yet, been verified. Given the overall veracity of the Bible's historical record and the fact that there is supporting evidence already to the account, I do not find it unreasonable to think that one detail will be verified at some point. Even if it is not, we KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that the event did occur, which is more than Dawkins can claim.--> The problem is that atheists and Jews and Christians and Muslims and Hindus all claim that their theory provides the best evidence. But belief in the Judeo-Christian God does not have to depend on the literal truth of every word in the Bible. Many Jews and Christians, for instance, regard the story of Adam and Eve as just that - a symbolic piece of fiction. And if a prophecy were to fail (unlikely unless it actually specifies a date), I really can't believe all Christians would turn round and say that in that case they don't believe in God or Jesus. > -And each of those theories can be tested empirically. Also, regarding Adam and Eve, there is compelling evidence that they were real, and that their son Cain did in fact build a city named Enoch. First, that became the word for "City" so much so that there no marker in the language to distinguish it from a person of the same name, which was unusual in Hebrew. Secondly, the site of the city is still known to this day, and still bears the same name. - > TONY: The bible, as a whole, is either the divine word of God, or it isn't. > > One might say of all religions and of atheism: either they are true or they are not. > You believe that the prophecies in the bible prove that every word in it is the literal truth, and that all the authors and the people who selected their texts were directly inspired by the God in whom the authors and the selectors believed. As you point out under “Different in degree or kind”, “that is certainly your right as a human with free will.”. Perhaps we should leave it at that. > -Literal? I've never claimed that the entire bible is literal. However, the parts where it is figurative are generally pretty clear. -> A few weeks ago, I was accosted in the street by two charming young Mormon ladies who were pleasantly surprised that I had some knowledge of Joseph Smith. They were thus able to skip the preliminaries and go straight for the jugular: either he was a fraud, a madman, or he was telling the truth. Which did I think was correct? Bearing in mind the circumstances of his “revelation”, I'd be interested to know how you would have answered.-He was a fraud, on several levels, not the least of which is that tenets of the Mormon faith directly contradict the bible that they claim to support, first and foremost that there aren't any more prophets. (Luke 16:16, Hebrew 1:1-2) Additionally, he violated several other biblical mandates, such as remaining free from politics (john 6:5, 17:16), and adultry, or more specifically coveting his neighbors wife. Even if the argument for polygamy could be made, no argument can be made for marrying another man's wife. He was also convicted on two different occasions of fraud, one of which was bank fraud, and was a self-proclaimed fraud(that was actually his defense on the lesser of the two charges). So, no, I do not think he was a prophet. I think he was a fraud that told people what they wanted to hear, and made it so that it was beneficial and fun for them to listen to him. There are a lot of economic and political benefits to being connected with the Mormons.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Falsifying God?
Dhw: It is clear from your response that certain prophecies “can neither be definitively proven nor disproven yet” (Ezekiel and Egypt, Isaiah and the Nile), and that is a pretty clever way to maintain a 100% record: it might not have happened yet, but it will. Of course that was my point in choosing Revelations. TONY: When I said it can not be proven, perhaps I should have added the word “yet”. Dhw: As you can see, you did add it, and this by coincidence puts you in the same position as Dawkins, who hopes and I'm sure also believes that eventually we shall understand and “embrace...within the natural” “phenomena that we don't yet understand”. (The God Delusion, p. 14) [...] You both have a similar faith in a future that will confirm your beliefs. TONY: Unlike Dawkins, I am not saying it lightly. Historically, people have questioned the bibles legitimacy concerning historical events and it has repeated been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true, and verified independently by third party sources no less. Even the event in dispute here is partially verified. It is only one small detail that has, of yet, been verified.-I have no sympathy with Dawkins, but science has made great strides in tracing the material causes of many phenomena that had been incomprehensible to our ancestors. I drew your attention to a long list of unfulfilled prophecies, and of the few you selected, two (Ezekiel and Egypt, Isaiah and the Nile) “can neither be definitively proven nor disproven yet”. I also referred to the prophecies concerning the 144,000 male virgins who would conquer the beast etc. I have no more faith in Dawkins' “yet” than I have in yours, but we are not talking of “one small detail”. Dhw: The problem is that atheists and Jews and Christians and Muslims and Hindus all claim that their theory provides the best evidence. But belief in the Judeo-Christian God does not have to depend on the literal truth of every word in the Bible. TONY: Literal? I've never claimed that the entire bible is literal. However, the parts where it is figurative are generally pretty clear. -I wasn't referring to those passages that are explicitly figurative. The problem lies with passages such as Eden, which you seem to think are historical whereas even many of your fellow theists regard them as fiction. TONY: ...regarding Adam and Eve, there is compelling evidence that they were real, and that their son Cain did in fact build a city named Enoch. First, that became the word for "City" so much so that there no marker in the language to distinguish it from a person of the same name, which was unusual in Hebrew. Secondly, the site of the city is still known to this day, and still bears the same name. -Is it not possible that the unknown authors of this tale deliberately set it in an identifiable location? Fiction writers have been known to use such devices. And I can't help wondering where the omniscient narrators got their information from, right down to the precise dialogue that took place between the different characters who had died thousands of years earlier. However, to get back to the subject of this thread, and putting on my theist hat, I still don't see how you can argue that a failed prophecy will falsify the concept of God, rather than falsifying the concept of the bible as the word of God.-Thank you for your very direct response to the Mormon question (was Joseph Smith a fraud, mad, or telling the truth?), which could of course be asked about any self-proclaimed prophet of any religious denomination. Without committing myself in any way (thus spake the agnostic!) I would supplement the list with “deluded”.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, December 26, 2014, 19:33 (3620 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I have no sympathy with Dawkins, but science has made great strides in tracing the material causes of many phenomena that had been incomprehensible to our ancestors. I drew your attention to a long list of unfulfilled prophecies, and of the few you selected, two (Ezekiel and Egypt, Isaiah and the Nile) “can neither be definitively proven nor disproven yet”. I also referred to the prophecies concerning the 144,000 male virgins who would conquer the beast etc. I have no more faith in Dawkins' “yet” than I have in yours, but we are not talking of “one small detail”.- Actually, I have to recant my statement. The one issue that I said had not been proven has indeed been proven. -http://www.egyptology.org.uk/detail.html (look at item 4)-"Upper Egypt has become an empty waste... a man goes to plough with his shield... The virtuous man goes in mourning because of what has happened in the land ... No one is left to maintain order... pestilence is throughout the land, blood is everywhere... many dead are buried in the river; the stream is a sepulcher... men are few... barbarians from abroad have come to Egypt... there are no Egyptians anywhere... without paying taxes owing to civil strife... he who was buried as a falcon [dead king] is devoid of biers..."- > > Dhw: The problem is that atheists and Jews and Christians and Muslims and Hindus all claim that their theory provides the best evidence. But belief in the Judeo-Christian God does not have to depend on the literal truth of every word in the Bible. > TONY: Literal? I've never claimed that the entire bible is literal. However, the parts where it is figurative are generally pretty clear. > > I wasn't referring to those passages that are explicitly figurative. The problem lies with passages such as Eden, which you seem to think are historical whereas even many of your fellow theists regard them as fiction. - Well, quite frankly, if Eden were figurative why would the bible give an explicit location and actually use it as a reference for geographical location?-> -> DHW: Is it not possible that the unknown authors of this tale deliberately set it in an identifiable location? Fiction writers have been known to use such devices. And I can't help wondering where the omniscient narrators got their information from, right down to the precise dialogue that took place between the different characters who had died thousands of years earlier. However, to get back to the subject of this thread, and putting on my theist hat, I still don't see how you can argue that a failed prophecy will falsify the concept of God, rather than falsifying the concept of the bible as the word of God.-I don't claim that, the bible does. Explicitly it states: -Deut 18:22 21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.(Also Jer 28:9, Eze 33:33, --> > Thank you for your very direct response to the Mormon question (was Joseph Smith a fraud, mad, or telling the truth?), which could of course be asked about any self-proclaimed prophet of any religious denomination. Without committing myself in any way (thus spake the agnostic!) I would supplement the list with “deluded”.-See Above, there is a absolute surefire way to test a prophet :P
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Falsifying God?
Tony claims that biblical prophecies are divinely inspired, and have proved accurate, and any inaccuracies would “falsify the concept of God”. I maintain that they would falsify the concept of the Bible as the Word of God. I drew Tony's attention to a list of failed prophecies: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies-TONY: Actually, I have to recant my statement. The one issue that I said had not been proven has indeed been proven. http://www.egyptology.org.uk/detail.html (look at item 4) "Upper Egypt has become an empty waste... a man goes to plough with his shield... The virtuous man goes in mourning because of what has happened in the land ... No one is left to maintain order... pestilence is throughout the land, blood is everywhere... many dead are buried in the river; the stream is a sepulcher... men are few... barbarians from abroad have come to Egypt... there are no Egyptians anywhere... without paying taxes owing to civil strife... he who was buried as a falcon [dead king] is devoid of biers..."-Once again, thank you for going to all this trouble. Like yourself, I rely on the work of “experts” in the field, and it would be pointless my entering into a dispute over the accuracy or otherwise of prophecies. I've read the rebuttal, and note that Ezekiel says: “No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years.” If a man goes to plough, a virtuous man mourns, men are few, barbarians have come to Egypt, it can hardly be claimed that no foot of man shall pass through it and it won't be inhabited. There is no mention of forty years, of surrounding countries being desolate, or the Nile drying up (Isaiah) or Egyptians speaking the language of Canaan (Isaiah). However, if you are happy that the prophecy has been fulfilled, that's fine with me! Individual prophecies are not the subject of this thread, and if you say A and another scholar says B, I'm in no position to judge.-dhw: The problem lies with passages such as Eden, which you seem to think are historical whereas even many of your fellow theists regard them as fiction. -Tony: Well, quite frankly, if Eden were figurative why would the bible give an explicit location and actually use it as a reference for geographical location?-Many writers use specific locations to give verisimilitude to their fictional stories. Joseph Smith gave precise details about lots of things, both in his statements and in his Book of Mormon, but to a degree we are able to check on his credentials, and you have unhesitatingly pronounced him a fraud. We don't even know who wrote Genesis, and since it purports to record events that happened and words that were spoken thousands of years before the text could have been written, I find it difficult to believe that the authors did not need to use their imagination.-DHW: However, to get back to the subject of this thread, and putting on my theist hat, I still don't see how you can argue that a failed prophecy will falsify the concept of God, rather than falsifying the concept of the bible as the word of God. TONY: I don't claim that, the bible does. Explicitly it states: Deut 18:22 21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.(Also Jer 28:9, Eze 33:33. I'm sorry, but this quotation is making precisely the point that I am making: if a prophecy is false, it doesn't falsify the concept of God, but the authenticity of the prophet who makes it. If a failed prophecy is recorded in the bible, it will therefore be the bible's claim to be the word of God that is falsified and not the concept of God.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 27, 2014, 18:25 (3619 days ago) @ dhw
So, let me rephrase this in a slightly different way:- If I came to you with a hypothesis on cellular intelligence (which you can not "See"), and that hypothesis proved correct on every single prediction that was ever recorded, as far as our sciences could detect, and was historically without blemish as far as our sciences could detect, AND continued to prove accurate for predictions as they occurred:- Would you discard the elements of the hypothesis that you could not see, or that you could not prove, simply because they haven't been proven yet?- You see, this is the issue that I have, and the double standard that I see applied virtually everywhere. In terms of historical accuracy, accuracy of predictions that are verifiable, and accuracy of predictions that continue to occur, the bible has no rival. Not in religious texts, not in scientific texts, and not in historical texts. Yet, you give more credibility to flights of fancy and random chance than you do to the Theory that has been proven more times throughout human history than any other.-The bibles theory postulates God. The bible has not verifiably failed, not even once. Every single time someone has thought they found an error, it was they who were, in time, proven to have made the error. Yet, you give it less credence than you would give virtually anything else.-And this then, is the truth of it: (Luke 16:31) "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." --Now here is a simple question for you. Christ performed miracles in front of thousands, and ascended in front of more than 500 people, most of which were later tortured to death for their beliefs in the most horrifying ways possible. Why would these people knowingly and willingly have gone to their death for something that they KNEW was a lie? If they hadn't seen it, would they have died for the lie? -This wasn't some hundreds of years later after being indoctrinated into anything. These were people that lived, and walked, and spoke with Christ, who didn't even have the bible in its current form yet. Even non-christians said he went around performing miracles.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Falsifying God?
dhw: Individual prophecies are not the subject of this thread, and if you say A and another scholar says B, I'm in no position to judge.-TONY: So, let me rephrase this in a slightly different way: If I came to you with a hypothesis on cellular intelligence (which you can not "See"), and that hypothesis proved correct on every single prediction that was ever recorded, as far as our sciences could detect, and was historically without blemish as far as our sciences could detect, AND continued to prove accurate for predictions as they occurred: Would you discard the elements of the hypothesis that you could not see, or that you could not prove, simply because they haven't been proven yet?-This is a false analogy. Cellular intelligence, as I understand it, is a hypothesis concerning the capabilities of cells to direct their own behaviour through autonomous action and interaction. In respect of the bible, we are asked to believe a collection of stories told by different authors at different times about events which in most cases they could not possibly have witnessed. Some may well have their roots in history, others in fiction. We have no way of knowing, though some certainly stretch my own credulity (see my earlier comment on the story of Adam and Eve.) You assure us that the bible's past record on prophecy is 100%, and so we should take the remainder on trust. Other scholars disagree, but you dismiss them as “fringe”, just as you dismiss certain interpretations of the blood issue and of Deuteronomy, on which I feel confident enough to pass comment. TONY: Now here is a simple question for you. Christ performed miracles in front of thousands, and ascended in front of more than 500 people, most of which were later tortured to death for their beliefs in the most horrifying ways possible. Why would these people knowingly and willingly have gone to their death for something that they KNEW was a lie? If they hadn't seen it, would they have died for the lie? -The problem is always the same: how much credence can one give to other people's testimony, especially when events happened so long ago? You begin with the premise that the bible is God's word, and so you can believe everything it says. The torture and execution of people for their beliefs is commonplace, but that doesn't mean that every report is true or that those who die for their beliefs would only do so if their beliefs were correct. You complain that I “give more credibility to flights of fancy and random chance than you do to the Theory that has been proven more times throughout human history than any other.” I presume by that you mean the theory that God created the world, as you say the bible's theory postulates God. On this I have an open mind, and am not aware of giving credence to flights of fancy or random chance, since I don't give credence to any particular theory.-I have done my best to answer your question, though of course my answer is unsatisfactory, because unlike yourself, David, and Richard Dawkins I have great difficulty giving credence to any theory. The subject of this particular thread, however, is your claim that the concept of God is falsifiable. You did not respond to that section of my post, and so I'll repeat it here because it is extremely relevant to our disagreement over the authority of the bible and its relevance to God.-DHW: However, to get back to the subject of this thread, and putting on my theist hat, I still don't see how you can argue that a failed prophecy will falsify the concept of God, rather than falsifying the concept of the bible as the word of God. TONY: I don't claim that, the bible does. Explicitly it states: Deut 18:22 21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.(Also Jer 28:9, Eze 33:33. -dhw: I'm sorry, but this quotation is making precisely the point that I am making: if a prophecy is false, it doesn't falsify the concept of God, but the authenticity of the prophet who makes it. If a failed prophecy is recorded in the bible, it will therefore be the bible's claim to be the word of God that is falsified and not the concept of God.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 29, 2014, 10:57 (3617 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: So, let me rephrase this in a slightly different way: > > Would you discard the elements of the hypothesis that you could not see, or that you could not prove, simply because they haven't been proven yet? > >DHW: This is a false analogy. Cellular intelligence, as I understand it, is a hypothesis concerning the capabilities of cells to direct their own behaviour through autonomous action and interaction. In respect of the bible, we are asked to believe a collection of stories told by different authors at different times about events which in most cases they could not possibly have witnessed. Some may well have their roots in history, others in fiction. We have no way of knowing, though some certainly stretch my own credulity (see my earlier comment on the story of Adam and Eve.) You assure us that the bible's past record on prophecy is 100%, and so we should take the remainder on trust. Other scholars disagree, but you dismiss them as “fringe”, just as you dismiss certain interpretations of the blood issue and of Deuteronomy, on which I feel confident enough to pass comment.-And this is precisely why it is NOT a false analogy. There are parts of cellular intelligence that you can not ever prove, so you would have to rely on indirect observations. However, the rest of your comment here is very far off base. Archaeology has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast majority of the bible. It has been confirmed and reconfirmed, over and again, with hard, physical, undeniable evidence. Your problem with the Bible is that you still view it as 'fiction' despite the evidence. --> > TONY: Now here is a simple question for you. Christ performed miracles in front of thousands, and ascended in front of more than 500 people, most of which were later tortured to death for their beliefs in the most horrifying ways possible. Why would these people knowingly and willingly have gone to their death for something that they KNEW was a lie? If they hadn't seen it, would they have died for the lie? > > >DHW: The problem is always the same: how much credence can one give to other people's testimony, especially when events happened so long ago? -I find it ironic that you have no trouble taking the testimony of people that were drugged up or dead(or nearly so) as evidence for NDE's, but find the testimony of hundreds of first hand accounts of living people beyond credence.-> >DHW: I have done my best to answer your question, though of course my answer is unsatisfactory, because unlike yourself, David, and Richard Dawkins I have great difficulty giving credence to any theory. -Except for those you are already predisposed to believe. After all, nearly all of your hypotheses are centered around evolution which gives a fairly strong indication as to what you actually believe. > > DHW: However, to get back to the subject of this thread, and putting on my theist hat, I still don't see how you can argue that a failed prophecy will falsify the concept of God, rather than falsifying the concept of the bible as the word of God. > > TONY: I don't claim that, the bible does. Explicitly it states: > Deut 18:22 21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.(Also Jer 28:9, Eze 33:33. > > dhw: I'm sorry, but this quotation is making precisely the point that I am making: if a prophecy is false, it doesn't falsify the concept of God, but the authenticity of the prophet who makes it. If a failed prophecy is recorded in the bible, it will therefore be the bible's claim to be the word of God that is falsified and not the concept of God.-The statistical chance that Christ (or anyone) could have fulfilled just 8 of the prophecies is 10^27th power. There were hundreds of prophecies regarding Christ, relating to times both during the period the bible was written and for future events. During his lifetime, he fulfilled more than 40 that required no divinity, i.e. things that could be proven by eye witnesses without slight of hand or magic or miracles. Just the non-miraculous prophecies fulfilled in Christ during his lifetime, and verifiable through non-christian third parties like Josephus, are beyond statistically impossible. Statistically impossible yet verifiable by modern archaeology and science.-All total there are more than 1800 prophecies in the bible. That even the tiniest fraction of them, 8, came true would be impossible without a miracle. That 1800 would, that is divine.-If you can see that same statistical impossibility as reason for justifying a disbelief in chance, what makes it unsuitable to recognize the work of something far more powerful(i.e. God)?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Falsifying God?
by David Turell , Monday, December 29, 2014, 14:52 (3617 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony:Archaeology has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast majority of the bible. It has been confirmed and reconfirmed, over and again, with hard, physical, undeniable evidence. Your problem with the Bible is that you still view it as 'fiction' despite the evidence. -Having toured Israel many years ago with a former General in the Israeli army, a "Sabra", meaning a Jew born there, we visited archeological sites which proved many of the sites mentioned in Israel in the Bible were true descriptions. The Walls of Jericho were found a few years ago. As physical history of the ancient Jewish history of cities and places, many in the Bible are confirmed. I've talked with an archeologist in the dig at 'David's City' next to the walls of Old Jerusalem. There was no question about its validity.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 29, 2014, 15:41 (3617 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony:Archaeology has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast majority of the bible. It has been confirmed and reconfirmed, over and again, with hard, physical, undeniable evidence. Your problem with the Bible is that you still view it as 'fiction' despite the evidence. > >David: Having toured Israel many years ago with a former General in the Israeli army, a "Sabra", meaning a Jew born there, we visited archeological sites which proved many of the sites mentioned in Israel in the Bible were true descriptions. The Walls of Jericho were found a few years ago. As physical history of the ancient Jewish history of cities and places, many in the Bible are confirmed. I've talked with an archeologist in the dig at 'David's City' next to the walls of Old Jerusalem. There was no question about its validity.-And there have been many seals, documents, and other artifacts proving the validity of the characters mentioned as well. Scholars thought, for about a century and a half, that most of the countries, kings, and characters were fictional. Archaeology keeps proving more and more of them every year.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Falsifying God?
TONY: There are parts of cellular intelligence that you can not ever prove, so you would have to rely on indirect observations.-Agreed. My “intelligent cell” hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis, not a belief. I extrapolate from scientists' direct observations of intelligent behaviour the possibility that under certain conditions cells might be able to innovate as well as adapt. This has nothing to do with prophecy! TONY: Archaeology has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast majority of the bible. It has been confirmed and reconfirmed, over and again, with hard, physical, undeniable evidence. Your problem with the Bible is that you still view it as 'fiction' despite the evidence.-Like David I have been to Israel and seen many of the historical sites. But unlike yourself I don't know how many biblical stories are actually true. For example, I have grave doubts about the existence of Adam and Eve and the serpent and Satan, and about Noah floating around in his ark with all those animals, and about Jonah sitting for three days and nights in the belly of a fish, and I'm suspicious of all the narratives written by unknown omniscient narrators precisely reproducing dialogue they could never have heard describing events they could not have witnessed. Authors invent. Historical novelists seize on real events and then put their own slant on them. So do historians, particularly when they have their own agenda. The existence of a place does not confirm the stories said to have happened in that place. TONY: I find it ironic that you have no trouble taking the testimony of people that were drugged up or dead(or nearly so) as evidence for NDE's, but find the testimony of hundreds of first hand accounts of living people beyond credence.-I have a great deal of trouble trying to explain NDE testimonies, but I don't reject them when their testimony has been verified by living, independent third parties. In relation to the ancient tales of the bible, please explain what you mean by “first hand accounts of living people”. Which living people have given us first hand accounts of the serpent speaking to Eve, or of Christ dying, coming back to life, and floating up to heaven on a cloud? DHW: ...unlike yourself, David, and Richard Dawkins I have great difficulty giving credence to any theory. TONY: Except for those you are already predisposed to believe. After all, nearly all of your hypotheses are centered around evolution which gives a fairly strong indication as to what you actually believe.-I am indeed convinced that all forms of life except the first have descended from earlier forms. I'm far from convinced by random mutations and gradualism. However, like vast numbers of monotheists (not to mention agnostics like Darwin himself), I have no difficulty reconciling common descent with the existence of God, though it appears to contradict the alleged authenticity of the bible - one reason for doubting that the bible is the word of God. DHW: ...I still don't see how you can argue that a failed prophecy will falsify the concept of God, rather than falsifying the concept of the bible as the word of God. TONY: I don't claim that, the bible does. Explicitly it states: Deut 18:22 21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.(Also Jer 28:9, Eze 33:33. dhw: I'm sorry, but this quotation is making precisely the point that I am making: if a prophecy is false, it doesn't falsify the concept of God, but the authenticity of the prophet who makes it. If a failed prophecy is recorded in the bible, it will therefore be the bible's claim to be the word of God that is falsified and not the concept of God. TONY: The statistical chance that Christ (or anyone) could have fulfilled just 8 of the prophecies is 10^27th power... -Once more you emphasize the accuracy of the prophecies and refuse to answer the point which made me open this thread and which is fundamental to our very different approaches to the question of God's existence. Ironically, I am actually fighting FOR God(s) in this discussion, because your approach necessitates acceptance of the infallibility of authors I do not trust. I will try to respond to the rest of your comments on the prophecies, but before I do, I'd be grateful if, in the light of the passage you have quoted from Deuteronomy, you would now accept that a failed prophecy would not falsify the concept of God, but would falsify the concept of the bible as the word of God.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 30, 2014, 22:17 (3616 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Once more you emphasize the accuracy of the prophecies and refuse to answer the point which made me open this thread and which is fundamental to our very different approaches to the question of God's existence. Ironically, I am actually fighting FOR God(s) in this discussion, because your approach necessitates acceptance of the infallibility of authors I do not trust. I will try to respond to the rest of your comments on the prophecies, but before I do, I'd be grateful if, in the light of the passage you have quoted from Deuteronomy, you would now accept that a failed prophecy would not falsify the concept of God, but would falsify the concept of the bible as the word of God.-If a book of the Bible failed in a prophecy, it would certainly falsify the bible as the word of god, and in fact books that had at one time been accepted, such as the apocrypha, were rejected for the simple reason that they contained errors, and for the fact that they used the same literary devices that you continue to accuse the bible authors of using, along with other criteria such as internal consistency. -A failed prophecy, particularly one of the primary prophecies that stretch across the entire length of the bible (i.e. written multiple times in different manners by different authors with different details) then yes, it would falsify the Judeo Christian God, because that is the standard which is set to falsify him. If his word is not truth, neither is he.-Would that falsify ALL gods? No, of course not. But each God, in turn, could be measured by the same standards of indirect observations. If their predictions fail, they are not Gods. - As I have said in the past, and I still believe today, you (DHW) would likely not believe in god unless you were able to sit down with him for tea. I have asked you before, and not received concrete response, what would it take to prove God to you?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Falsifying God?
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 31, 2014, 00:14 (3616 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > Tony: As I have said in the past, and I still believe today, you (DHW) would likely not believe in god unless you were able to sit down with him for tea. I have asked you before, and not received concrete response, what would it take to prove God to you?-I've offered all sorts of scientific evidence which you have seen, which to me offers proof beyond a reasonable doubt with n o luck.
Falsifying God?
by BBella , Tuesday, December 30, 2014, 19:35 (3616 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> All total there are more than 1800 prophecies in the bible. That even the tiniest fraction of them, 8, came true would be impossible without a miracle. That 1800 would, that is divine.-Even if the above were absolutely TRUTH, it DOES NOT prove the divinity of God or that there is any such thing as divine anything. There are other possible explanations besides the divine hand of God for these and other so-called "divine" events, etc, which I have mentioned before. Belief in divinity is itself just a belief that has no concrete proof beyond belief itself in reality (IMO).
Falsifying God?
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 30, 2014, 20:26 (3616 days ago) @ BBella
> Bbella: Even if the above were absolutely TRUTH, it DOES NOT prove the divinity of God or that there is any such thing as divine anything. There are other possible explanations besides the divine hand of God for these and other so-called "divine" events, etc, which I have mentioned before. Belief in divinity is itself just a belief that has no concrete proof beyond belief itself in reality (IMO).-This is why I've used science all these years to reach my conclusions. If Tony were correct there would not be the debate we are having. He is convinced from his point of view and that is correct for him. Nostradamus made many so-called predictions. Does that make him divine? The evidence for the accuracy of the predictions and prophecies is quite twisted usually in my view. The science of our reality tells us there is a powerful something at the beginning of everything.
Falsifying God?
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 24, 2014, 23:59 (3622 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: A few weeks ago, I was accosted in the street by two charming young Mormon ladies who were pleasantly surprised that I had some knowledge of Joseph Smith. They were thus able to skip the preliminaries and go straight for the jugular: either he was a fraud, a madman, or he was telling the truth. Which did I think was correct? Bearing in mind the circumstances of his “revelation”, I'd be interested to know how you would have answered.-Finding revelations on gold tablets dug up in his backyard in upstate New York is a bit much. Polygamy is another problem. Yet the Mormon Church comes across as teaching a high level of morality, and the Mormons I know and have known have all been very fine folks.
Falsifying God?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 25, 2014, 08:46 (3621 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: A few weeks ago, I was accosted in the street by two charming young Mormon ladies who were pleasantly surprised that I had some knowledge of Joseph Smith. They were thus able to skip the preliminaries and go straight for the jugular: either he was a fraud, a madman, or he was telling the truth. Which did I think was correct? Bearing in mind the circumstances of his “revelation”, I'd be interested to know how you would have answered. > >David: Finding revelations on gold tablets dug up in his backyard in upstate New York is a bit much. Polygamy is another problem. Yet the Mormon Church comes across as teaching a high level of morality, and the Mormons I know and have known have all been very fine folks.-Agreed. I am not knocking the average mormon, just the guy the kicked it all off.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.