The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[elguanteloko]

God is none of the above- at this time.

God is physical and if I claim gnomes are physical and they exist then I would need to justify my claim with more than just to say I see their influence (of gnomes) in my life. If I can't then another, better explanation of what I claim are the product of the influence of gnomes is granted.

God's physicality is a "theory" I believe is "true" but it cannot be proven by today's science. It's like another theory which cannot be confirmed (yet). But I find the idea that he is a Man highly useful in explaining the world around me. His influence on the world is spiritual. Science in it's present state cannot "indicate" such things as spirits, though they might someday.

"Science can't confirm the veracity of astrology though it might some day." Don't you see the problem with that? Plus, we are speaking of influences of God, not God's existence. Ever heard of parsimony?

But there are also other ways of looking at that question- which I am myself considering presently, so I am not ready to take a position on whether God is in principle scientifically discoverable some day. I haven't decided yet what I think about that one, but I'm leaning against it. I think he will decide to remain always subjectively "verifiable", but I don't know.

MF, do you or do you not get why verification is a horrible way of testing explanations? Have you ever read Karl Popper?

Here is a biggie. My point is that there is NO "that which is perceptible" WHICH WE CAN TALK ABOUT.

I agree but once again I'm NOT speaking of what is perceived but the best explanation of why that perception came about. Clear enough?

This is a big point you don't seem to "get"- and your usual answer is "oh- then anything goes" which is totally wrong.

No, that wasn't my answer. My answer was that if not everything goes then some things don't go. That's OBVIOUS. If not all explanations go then some are valid and some are not. All I'm asking is for you to see that the explanation you give (God or spirits) for why certain events arise (miracles, revelations) is not the best one. Why not? Because they rest on verification and ignore the principle of parsimony.

That is what makes me a "radical empiricist"- all WE CAN TALK ABOUT is perceptions- some are subjective- "my knee hurts" and some are objective "the two of us just saw a pink elephant"; "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius". To believe that there exists something else which is NOT PERCEPTIBLE is to believe in that which is not "real". Even illusions are "real illusions"- they trick our brains in "real" ways. In fact the "reality" of illusions and the fact that they can be shown experimentally shows a lot about how perceptions - and the world itself- is constructed by our perceptions if it.

What is trying to discover the cause of certain types of cancer, mf?

God is "real" because he can be "perceived" subjectively, like pain, like beauty, like meaning in one's life, like personal feelings.

Is God the perceptions you have in your mind or is God what causes those perceptions in your mind?

[WalkerW]

I have. It happened to me. And it was one of those tender mercies that got me through the bigger stuff as this was at a critical time.

You're going to have to explain.

[elguanteloko]

A philoscientist.

Unfortunately for elguanteloko, to be a good philoscientist, one must be able to think originally, and not be an academic clone demanding scientific "evidence" and justifications for the reality of our G-d.

Have you guys ever heard of Philosophy of Science?

[elguanteloko]

Well, I didn't think we needed any help from you in knocking on doors. I don't know what made you think we did.

No! The point is I AM knocking at your door.

That is probably a valid statement. I think LDS are making a mistake to reply to your posts. That is why I hadn't until now.

A mistake to reply to relevant questions in a discussion forum? Unbelievable!

[elguanteloko]

A philoscientist.

Unfortunately for elguanteloko, to be a good philoscientist, one must be able to think originally, and not be an academic clone demanding scientific "evidence" and justifications for the reality of our G-d.

So, why shouldn't one ask for evidence (and scientific evidence) for the existence of a physical, incredibly powerful being who is said to influence our daily lives? If something requires evidence I say that is.

[Deborah]

Well, my point is that there is no such spiritual place/plane/being. God is included in that so there isn't any relevant distinction to be made.

What is your evidence for that besides the fact that you don't believe it?

[elguanteloko]

What is your evidence for that besides the fact that you don't believe it?

There's no evidence (in the proper sense) for this negative since it isn't an analytical nor falsifiable claim. My propositions are always tentative.

Propositions about God's existence and influence are neither tentative nor falsifiable nor analytical claims.

[bookofmormontruth]

Have you guys ever heard of Philosophy of Science?

Have you ever heard of mocking?

[bookofmormontruth]

So, why shouldn't one ask for evidence (and scientific evidence) for the existence of a physical, incredibly powerful being who is said to influence our daily lives? If something requires evidence I say that is.

The faithless always DEMAND evidence.

Yet, faith leads to evidence and only the faithful are strengthened by the evidence.

[elguanteloko]

The faithless always DEMAND evidence.

I don't demand it, that's a caricature. I just require it. If God doesn't want to provide it that's fine but I just can't believe like that.

Yet, faith leads to evidence and only the faithful are strengthened by the evidence.

I saw the evidence but got disappointed with it. I was a believer and saw many "miracles" but upon further reflection I realized there was more I hadn't seen. That "other" was devastating.

[WalkerW]

The faithless always DEMAND evidence.

By implication, then, the faithful don't?

[Hamba Tuhan]

What country was this in, Hamba?

Indonesia.

[Mudcat]

Elguanteloko,

Back on page three I remember asking if you believed in the existence of Satan.

Don't want to beat you over the head with it, just wanted to inquire again to the subject in case you missed my post.

Regards,

Mudcat

[ERayR]

Any tool is useless in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it.

[elguanteloko]

Elguanteloko,

Back on page three I remember asking if you believed in the existence of Satan.

Don't want to beat you over the head with it, just wanted to inquire again to the subject in case you missed my post.

Regards,

Mudcat

No gods, no devils, no spirits. I don't believe in any of that.

[bookofmormontruth]

I don't demand it, that's a caricature. I just require it.

Demand or require, you have no authority to override G-d's ways.

If God doesn't want to provide it that's fine but I just can't believe like that

Complete opposite of faith, but still your choice.

I saw the evidence but got disappointed with it. I was a believer and saw many "miracles" but upon further reflection I realized there was more I hadn't seen. That "other" was devastating.

I am sorry to hear, honestly. Can you expound on the "other"?

[bookofmormontruth]

By implication, then, the faithful don't?

If they demand/require evidence, they aren't exercising faith.

[Libs]

Indonesia.

Thank you.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If they demand/require evidence, they aren't exercising faith.

Acting upon faith in what is true generates evidence in abundance.

[Libs]

If they demand/require evidence, they aren't exercising faith.

I'm sorry, but I think faith does require evidence, even if it's just subjective evidence.

I don't believe in God just because someone told me he exists. I believe, because I have had real experiences with him (real to me), and because I have felt the Spirit innumerable times. I think that's what most believers, here, are saying. We've had experiences (evidence) that has built our faith and belief over the years.

[CV75]

How are these experiences a "bridge" (a good one, that is) between faith and knowledge? Via verification? Google verificationism and why that is a horrible way of doing proper science. Yes, we are trying to do proper science.

Are you actually asking whether there is a process (call it personal revelation or something else) that leads one from hypothesis to experimentation to conclusion? Such a thing is acknowledged and experienced by most conscientious experimenters in some manner or another, whether the realm or object of experimentation is spiritual or physical.

For this reason, the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4th sentences of the post I am replying to, for example, are useless for the purpose of getting at the object of the first. For example, grumpiness is not useful in science; it is irrelevant and is sometimes even destructive to its aims. The personal revelation (or whatever one wishes to call it) is not useless, but the personal distractions, hang-ups and attitudes that interfere with it.

Or are you asking how this process leads one from hypothesis (belief) to experimentation (faith) to conclusion (knowledge)? That has been explained in terms of it serving as the “link” – as an integral part of the search-and-discovery pairing. Where there is no such link, there is no way one will ever lead to the other.

Or are you asking how this process is considered “good”? How is that a scientific question, or under what parameters would "good" be scientifically defined?

[Mordecai]

Acting upon faith in what is true generates evidence in abundance.

Faith comes by "...hearing the word of God...," so even the initial emergence of faith comes from some evidence, i.e. the testimony of others. Then continuing to act on that faith, as you say, results in greater evidence.

[WalkerW]

Faith comes by "...hearing the word of God...," so even the initial emergence of faith comes from some evidence, i.e. the testimony of others. Then continuing to act on that faith, as you say, results in greater evidence.

I second this.

[Mudcat]

Elguanteloko,

Back on page three I remember asking if you believed in the existence of Satan.

Don't want to beat you over the head with it, just wanted to inquire again to the subject in case you missed my post.

Regards,

Mudcat

No gods, no devils, no spirits. I don't believe in any of that.

Thanks for that.

I appreciate the admission that your OP was a bit facetious.

[Libs]

Faith comes by "...hearing the word of God...," so even the initial emergence of faith comes from some evidence, i.e. the testimony of others. Then continuing to act on that faith, as you say, results in greater evidence.

Yes..I will "third" that.