Body Signals Redux: Proving Mormonism

Interesting.

How do you know it's true?

Does it make your body twitch in the right places? Or some other reason?

 

How exactly does it show that Smith was lying scum, etc.?

You seem quite angry about this, for some reason. Why is that?

 

Undeniably true? That's a very strong truth you've got there. And I see people in this very thread denying it.

I get it that you believe it, but how do you know it's true? Because you think God told you directly, perhaps?

I mean, it's one thing to believe it's true, but to have no doubts at all is what puzzles me. It suggests to me that you're not a very critical thinker.

What does "witness" mean? Does it mean you've seen things you regard as the works of God? Or something else?

As for "testimony", is this direct from God, or through other people? If it's other people, you're really just trusting that what they say is true, aren't you?

Does it make any more sense than the bible?

Has it occurred to you that the lack of any physical evidence was kind of convenient for Joseph Smith?

 

While I'm at it, I might as well respond to the opening post, too.

Do you think there is any body signal that is not a sign of God communicating with us?

For example, if I'm hungry, is that God, or is it my body wanting energy?
If I sneeze, is that God telling me something?
If I feel the need to go to the toilet, is that God talking?
What if I feel like dancing? Is that God, or something else?
Is it all God?

Right now, as I sit here writing this post, I have slight itches on my left-hand upper body, behind my left knee, on top of my head and near my right elbow. Now, I'd be inclined to put these down to the fact that it's quite warm in the room where I am, and I've been out in the sun exercising this afternoon and I got a bit sweaty.

But I take it you'd say that these are all signals from God, telling me that I'm thinking evil thoughts (left side of body and left leg), but at the same time doing good actions (right elbow). Oh, and what does the head mean?

Anyway, I'm wondering how you propose to test your body twitch theory scientifically. Do you have a particular set of tests in mind? Obviously, you'd need to look at many people other than yourself.

Anecdotally, how many people have you talked into agreeing with your body twitch theory, so far?

 

I just find it somewhat disappointing that non-believers can't do a bit better than to call names and make unprovable accusations, in response to various kinds of nonsense. Proof by ridicule isn't really a valid kind of argument. Nor is Proof by Outrage or Proof by Handwaving Dismissal.

 

I think you're out to convince yourselves how clever you all are. I also think it's a power trip to put other people down, while placing undue and unspoken confidence in the foundations of your own beliefs. Moreover, its a kind of lazy bullying behaviour.

 

Thanks, but I've already talked to a number of Mormon missionaries. Let's just say they didn't convince me. In my experience, though, most Mormons I've met have been nice, well-intentioned people. For what it's worth...

 

Well, yes, there is.

If you're going to start ridiculing a religion that has about 15 million followers, then you should do a little research and find out why they believe what they believe. And if you don't accept what they believe, then you shouldn't go around preaching that they are wrong unless you have reasonable support for your claims about their beliefs.

I don't know. Why did you bother posting in this thread? Only you can answer that.

Again, I make the point that 15 million people believe the story so much that they identify as Mormon. The fact that, at first glance, you find it unbelievable, doesn't tell us very much.

But this is religion. All religions offer stories that have little, if any, solid proof. Generally, the excuse is that the proof has been lost to history in various ways.

The fact is, the vast majority of the world's population, that's 7 billion people, believe in one or another kind of religion. And they're not all stupid or ridiculous people. It would seem to follow, therefore, that it is not completely unreasonable to hold religious beliefs that may seem, at first glance, to be ridiculous. Chances are that there are subtleties and complications to the doctrine that don't readily present themselves at first glance.

Speaking personally, it annoys me that some non-believers are ready to dismiss virtually the whole of religion without bothering to learn about it or truly considering what it has to teach. Religion is a very wide topic. It's not all bad. And it certainly is not all simplistic nonsense.

 

Billy Baxter:

There's a problem with a statement like "right elbow = good action God approves", which is that it is appears to me to be unfalsifiable.

You tell me that a right-elbow itch means God approves of my actions. But how can I be sure? There's no way I can check whether God really approves or not. I just have to take your word for it.

At this point, therefore, I can't see any way of testing scientifically whether there's anything to your theory. You're essentially telling us that any body function can be interpreted as a signal of God's approval or disapproval or whatever, but there's no way anybody can know what God is really approving or disapproving at any particular time. So, all this stuff about God communicating through the body may as well be just imagination.

Can you think of any way that we could, in principle, prove that a right-elbow itch was not a sign of God's approval of good actions? What test would we need to make to attempt such a proof?

This is a common method in science, and what falsifiability is all about. We try as hard as we can to prove the opposite or negative of what we suspect is really the case. If we can't prove the negative, then the initial hypothesis is a viable theory. Importantly, however, we need to be able to point to a specific test which, if the opposite were true, would definitively prove that the opposite was true. If no such test exists then the idea is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.