The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[Sky]

Here are some scriptures for the night...don't lose faith my friends!!

Alma 32: 21

And now as I said concerning faith— faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

Ether 12: 4, 6

Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God.

And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

[Nathair/|\]

Since others have done so in this thread, I'd like to share one of my stories of receiving personal revelation. It's not as dramatic as some of the others, but it's mine and it was important to me.

The summer before I left on my mission was the rainiest I have ever seen for my home region. A river, about 60 miles north of my home had a 100 year flood that summer. Well one afternoon, there was a terrible rainstorm. My mom asked me to take my dad's pickup and check on the cows. While I was out there, the rain intensified until I could barely see the nose of the truck. As I was driving around the pasture, I had a clear, strong impression "Stop." It was a thought, but it didn't feel like my own and it came out of nowhere. I hadn't been feeling nervous or anything, just frustrated with the difficulty of finding the cows. Even so, I ignored it the first time. Then the thought came again, even stronger. So I stopped the truck and got out. There, about two feet in front of me, was a steep slope, the only such place in the pasture. If I hadn't stopped, I would have destroyed the truck going over, which we couldn't afford to replace. If I had survived--highly unlikely--my dad would have killed me. I certainly would be in no shape to go on a mission. Fortunately, that was the only dangerous place and I was able to orient myself and drive home safely.

Now, I can't prove any part of that happened, especially not that my Heavenly Father was involved, but for myself, I have no doubt whatsoever what happened and what it meant.

Yours under the subjective oaks,

Nathair /|\

[bookofmormontruth]

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.

True, but they didn't demand/require it.

Testimonies I believe are evidences, but to the world - not so much.

[bookofmormontruth]

Here are some scriptures for the night...don't lose faith my friends!!

Alma 32: 21

Ether 12: 4, 6

No mention of "evidence"?

I second that.

[elguanteloko]

Thanks for that.

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

It wasn't. Google "reductio ad absurdum"

[elguanteloko]

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.

Do you believe because you see miracles or do you see miracles because you believe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[mfbukowski]

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.

"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?

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

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?

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.

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

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

Sorry, it's hopeless.

[Jeff K.]

Do you believe because you see miracles or do you see miracles because you believe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The question can just as easily be turned around.

Do you believe there are no miracles because you can't see them? Or is it that you can't see miracles therefore you cannot believe?

It goes back to the same question earlier. If you lack the faculty to see, then you cannot know.

[elguanteloko]

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

I'm not overriding anything since I'm talking about requirements I have, not what I think God should have since he doesn't even exist for me.

Complete opposite of faith, but still your choice.

Sure.

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

Not now, please.

[elguanteloko]

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

Sure it does! Actually, there's even a term for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[elguanteloko]

The question can just as easily be turned around.

Do you believe there are no miracles because you can't see them? Or is it that you can't see miracles therefore you cannot believe?

It goes back to the same question earlier. If you lack the faculty to see, then you cannot know.

I have no problem with answering it, though. I believe there are no miracles because I don't see them and when people see them they can't justify them. Not enough evidence to conclude they exist at all.

..you know, like with a TON of other things we require evidence for.

[mfbukowski]

Have you guys ever heard of Philosophy of Science?

Have you ever heard of Kuhn?

[elguanteloko]

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.

So you have experiences, but again, how do you know they came from the source you say they came from? Just because we happen to think a miracle happened doesn't mean it happened and some other type of criteria is needed other than "ah! that's what it was because that's what I was expecting."

[elguanteloko]

Have you ever heard of Kuhn?

Kuhn is a big name in the Phil. of Science. I've read him. BTW, my last post to you had some very interesting questions at the end that I think will make the discussion move along. I hope you can answer them.

[mfbukowski]

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

[elguanteloko]

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.

That's not how science works, brother. Also, not all experimenters are scientific experimenters. Science uses falsificationism, not verificationism, to move along. Here's why we don't use verificationism anymore:

If p then q

q

----- (therefore)

p

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent and it says that if your hypothesis states that "if p then q" (or if you do p you will get result q), if you get "q" then you can NOT conclude that it was "p". Example: "If Bill Gates steals all the gold in the world then Bill Gates is rich" (this is indeed the case). "Bill Gates is rich" (this is true). Can we conclude, then, that since Bill Gates is rich that he stole all the gold in the world? Of course not. Science, however, works in part through falsification:

If p then q

not-q

----------- (therefore)

not-p

That is, scientific theories can only be shown to be false but never confirmed in the strict sense of the word or shown to be true. Of course, if you get the same experimental result over and over again then the theory is corroborated though NEVER shown to be "true". One of the things aspects of science that distinguishes from other pursuits is that a theory must be able to make very risky predictions, testable predictions that can corroborate the theory. Furthermore, and probably most importantly, scientific theories must be falsifiable or able to be shown wrong with a certain experiment.. If your theory predicts that "q" will arise when you do "p" but then you do "p" and you don't get "q", then you know that "p" isn't the case and your theory is falsified.

I hope this helps a little.

[Mudcat]

It wasn't. Google "reductio ad absurdum"

I am more than familiar with term, but that doesn't discount your facetiousness in the OP. Nor is it relevant.

In your OP you said, "We know that Satan can deceive us into thinking something was a revelation when it wasn't."

You finally admitted that you don't believe in Satan. Thank you for that. Certainly you see the paradox in those statements.

I was being polite when I said facetious. In short untruthful would have been a better phrase. You have lost points towards credibility, IMO.

In that respect, I would offer some advice. That being, you have only one reputation to post with.

That aside, I don't think your an atheist. It doesn't match your tactics. Your just angry with God. I hope you figure out a way reconcile that.

[elguanteloko]

One couldn't expect otherwise. This has been widely studied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[elguanteloko]

I am more than familiar with term, but that doesn't discount your facetiousness in the OP. Nor is it relevant.

In your OP you said, "We know that Satan can deceive us into thinking something was a revelation when it wasn't."

You finally admitted that you don't believe in Satan. Thank you for that. Certainly you see the paradox in those statements.

I was being polite when I said facetious. In short untruthful would have been a better phrase. You have lost points towards credibility, IMO.

In that respect, I would offer some advice. That being, you have only one reputation to post with.

That aside, I don't think your an atheist. It doesn't match your tactics. Your just angry with God, I hope you figure out a way reconcile that.

I've never masqueraded myself here as a believer when I wasn't or as a non-believer when I was. I was assuming facts for the sake of argument and if you can't get that then too bad. You can go ahead and think I'm "angry" at God but that just serves as a cheap scapegoat to cover your ears and stay in your comfort zone. What about actually engaging in the criticisms of your view?

You reminded me of this saying: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Guess which one your doing?

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

[elguanteloko]

True, but they didn't demand/require it.

Testimonies I believe are evidences, but to the world - not so much.

Which one do you think we should adopt: require good evidence or not require good evidence? Should we require good evidence for some things but not for others, perhaps? If so, why the double standard?

[elguanteloko]

Sorry, it's hopeless.

Come on, mf, they are good questions. Just answer these two, if you may:

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

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

Shouldn't be that hard.

[Mudcat]

You reminded me of this saying: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Guess which one your doing?

False dichotomy.

But given that, I am doing none of the above.

I am simply watching you pound on the table you built.

[elguanteloko]

False dichotomy.

But given that, I am doing none of the above.

I am simply watching you pound on the table you built.

Saying the other person is angry with God when he brings serious (and old) criticisms to the view isn't pounding the table? We even have a name for it: ad hominem.

[elguanteloko]

Nathair said the following:

Now, I can't prove any part of that happened, especially not that my Heavenly Father was involved, but for myself, I have no doubt whatsoever what happened and what it meant.

I want to clarify that I don't have a problem with this statement at all. I don't have a problem with people believe that God, angels or spirits intervene in their lives, I really don't. My only objection is when they claim that their explanation is the most likely to be the case when it isn't. Let's imagine the following scenario:

Someone put a gun in your son's room and (somehow) took his fingerprints and placed them in the crime scene of a murder the "someone" committed to incriminate your son. This someone made the perfect crime and he made ALL the possible evidence fit your son instead of him. He isn't even a suspect in the investigation. There is also no way of confirming that your son didn't do it since he was (let's say) asleep all the time in his room (he lives with you). You are his parent and you saw him and even talked to him at home while the real criminal was doing the killing. Let's also say that you saw all that happened with your own eyes (this is just impossible but go with it for now for the sake of the analogy).

Now, you know for a fact that your son didn't do it though you recognize all the evidence points to him being guilty. You give your testimony of the events but there isn't evidence on your son's side other than your testimony. You believe in your son but you realize he didn't do it. When you bring a reason in his favor there are stronger reasons to think he is guilty.

Now let's imagine that you did NOT see your son that night since you thought he was asleep all this time. You absolutely trust him but realize that all the evidence is against him and you can recognize that if you were the judge you would have to condemn him based on the evidence.

It is the same with faith here. You may trust God and you may even think he exists and he communicates with you but one can realize that miraculous explanations are NOT the most probable to be the case due to the evidence, all things considered. You may choose to trust your son and you may choose to trust in God and in his existence but you realize it isn't based on the most likely explanation to be the true.