Why Is Moroni'S Promise, A Mormon Belief, Considered A Valid Epistemic Test Of Mormon Belief?

[Montgomery Price]

Interesting that you mention how people behave. You have received many responses on choosing a method, and even how Moroni’s Promise requires and provides a qualified justification in the verses, but you seem unable to provide a satisfactory response to the question as to which method you use and how you decided it has a valid justification (since you seem to require justification for its use).

For example, do you have no basis for making a decision either way; do you not make a decision; do you leave the decision up to chance; have you found an alternative method; do you use trial and error on methods that have indeterminate or no valid justification; do you still behave as if you prefer a method and don’t or are unable to prefer one method over another (and if so, why are these problems for you—how is your resultant behavior problematic)?

Also, give exampleswhere valid justifications equally support contradictory claims in the realm of Moroni's Promise.

I only received many unconvincing responses evasion. The methods proposed to choose between methods seem to only be based on an arbitrary personal preference. "What works for you." This is not about any whimsical and inconsequential personal preference, it's about knowledge. You don't bear your testimony that you prefer the church to be true the same way you prefer chocolate over vanilla, you claim that you "know". I refrain from committing to any specific faith because I can't justify the preference of one over the other. You ask me which method I use to discern between them, but the entire point is that no one can present any method that works to properly discern between differing beliefs. The best option is to refrain until a reliable method can be provided. Until a reasonable method is provided, I won't build my house upon the sand.

And I already did give an example:

Jack believes in God based on personal experience and that this God answers prayers.

Jill believes in God based on personal experience and that this God answers prayers.

Jack asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jack experiences responds with a positive answer.

Jill asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jill experiences responds with a negative answer.

What explanation can be given for the preference of Jack's experience that couldn't give an equivalent justification for the preference of Jill's experience?

The only explanations I've heard so far are circular or simply to be credulous only when considering your own personal experience. That you can't explain why someone may prefer chocolate over vanilla has nothing to do with whether they exist. If someone asks why you believe they exist, your personal preference is not a valid measure of knowledge, yet you claim to know. Two people can't know two contradictory things. One or both must be mistaken.

If they remain contradictory and we are unable to justify any specific claim to spiritual knowledge, then indecision is our best available option. Indecision can't be called knowledge, and this is the problem.

[Montgomery Price]

You have answered your own question. You cannot "justify" a preference.

The choice of a faith is a preference which has nothing to do with the "outside" (objective) world.

How is testifying to "know" meaningful in any context besides the objective world? If you're not referring to knowledge of the objective world, then you have a curious definition of knowledge.

A "faith" is a set of BELIEFS which cannot be proven- by definition- or it would not be a faith.

If no faith can be proven, then why prefer one over the other and behave as if one is proven? Sure, you can't justify why you have a preference for chocolate over vanilla... but the mere preference is no measure of their existence. As has been explained to you several times, the source is what is in question. No matter how strongly you prefer chocolate over vanilla, your preference is not a valid measure of whether they exist as you conceive them, yet you act as if they do. I can only describe this as credulity.

Yep.

You love Annie and I love Ruth. Those, in your book, are "contradictory claims". Quoting you: "That leaves us with no basis for preferring one over the other. Because we can recognize that the claims are not equal, being unable to prefer one over the other is problematic. "

Can you see how silly that sounds?

Religious BELIEFS are not about the "objective world" they are about what goes on inside us. Religious beliefs may make CLAIMS, historical or otherwise about what "objectively" happened but those claims can never be objectively "proven" conclusively, or they would not be FAITH. If they could be "proven" they would be called SCIENCE or HISTORY

I hope you are getting a glimmer here, because this is getting very tedious.

Again, it's not the experience of love that's in question... Of course there's a contradiction in preference, that's not the point. It's whether Annie and Ruth can exist at the same time or at all. To expand on your analogy, Annie and Ruth are mutually exclusive beings. Depending on one and not the other must be justified, otherwise the choice is made with credulity. How much you love one over the other has nothing to do with whether they exist. A proper analogy would hold that you "know" one exists simply because of how much you love them.

Are you getting a glimmer? Do you see how silly this sounds?

We can compare the proposed sources of the experiences, and see that they are mutually exclusive. The only way we can resolve this is by the sort comparison you claim can't happen. What standard that applies to each experience can bring you to one conclusion and not the other? If there's no basis for comparison, then on what basis do you behave as if they have been compared and one can be considered knowledge and the other not?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[elguanteloko]

Mak made a distinction between his personal religious beliefs which are firmly LDS and his academic examination of Biblical texts, and I make the same distinction between my "objective" philosophical stance and my subjective religious stance. He mentioned that as a Biblical scholar, he must remain agnostic because that is the nature of the context of biblical scholarship. The resurrection cannot be proven as an historical event, nor can it's significance- the resurrection of the savior of the world.

Taking a similar stance, objectively, I see no need to postulate the existence of God because God in fact does not "exist" (yet) objectively. That is an expression in a scientific language context, and it is true. There is no objective or logical evidence for God at all, period. My entire philosophical approach does not require God- it is based on pragmatism, utilitarianism and a kind of linguistic constructivist approach. One of my favorite philosophers is Rorty, who was an atheist (I think he is wrong about subjectivity- that is where he goofs up imo)

Subjectively, however, I know that God is my Father and friend, and talk to him all the time- and he talks back! I have had many experiences I know are from him- without any doubt whatsoever- total 100% certainty.

Sorry but this doesn't answer the question at all. I'll repeat it: "do you think ANY of those "catalysts" is God or God's power in some shape or form? Whatever you think the "causes" are and as complex as you think they may be, is God one of those million contributing factors?"

God can only be "known" subjectively, on a personal level.

why? (if you are going to answer this please do so ONLY if you are going to answer the previous one)

If you want an analogy we used earlier, I think you are living in a world of charts and graphs of the alleged "sound" of a trumpet- objective evidence, while I hear the sound of the music of the spheres. I am willing to fully engage my subjectivity because I don't fear that it might not be "reliable"- because I know that there is no such thing as an objective experience (one we can share) which is totally "reliable" either- except as a tool for a specific purpose.

wow, mf, that's not what anyone means by "objective". We mean something that it does not independent of our feelings, emotions, ideas, etc to be what it is. That's quite shaky but that is FAR from being what you are saying. The perception of an apple is not the apple. The apple is what is said to be objective, not the experience of it even though you can only get the experience of it, not the thing that produces the sensations and experiences.

If you are going to answer anything in this post, please make sure you answer the first question. I will appreciate that.

[mfbukowski]

How is testifying to "know" meaningful in any context besides the objective world? If you're not referring to knowledge of the objective world, then you have a curious definition of knowledge.

If no faith can be proven, then why prefer one over the other and behave as if one is proven? Sure, you can't justify why you have a preference for chocolate over vanilla... but the mere preference is no measure of their existence. As has been explained to you several times, the source is what is in question. No matter how strongly you prefer chocolate over vanilla, your preference is not a valid measure of whether they exist as you conceive them, yet you act as if they do. I can only describe this as credulity.

Again, it's not the experience of love that's in question... Of course there's a contradiction in preference, that's not the point. It's whether Annie and Ruth can exist at the same time or at all. To expand on your analogy, Annie and Ruth are mutually exclusive beings. Depending on one and not the other must be justified, otherwise the choice is made with credulity. How much you love one over the other has nothing to do with whether they exist. A proper analogy would hold that you "know" one exists simply because of how much you love them.

Are you getting a glimmer? Do you see how silly this sounds?

We can compare the proposed sources of the experiences, and see that they are mutually exclusive. The only way we can resolve this is by the sort comparison you claim can't happen. What standard that applies to each experience can bring you to one conclusion and not the other? If there's no basis for comparison, then on what basis do you behave as if they have been compared and one can be considered knowledge and the other not?

Man, how long does it take you to get out of Baskin Robbins? Trust me, vanilla exists and a lot of other flavors too! I don't even know how we got to where you are!

I think it has finally happened.

I'm speechless. Let's just say I will let your post stand on its own merits. There is no communication here whatsoever, and it is not for lack of trying- I can tell you that.

I hope you feel better soon, and your stomach feels better! Avoid stress- it's not good for you!

Edited June 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

Answers to the OP may appear evasive to posters who want to examine Moroni's promise, James admonition or Alma's test as epistemic. That is because it is a false premise to begin with.

Answers to prayers or inspiration are by their very nature beyond mortal measurement (at least at our present level of knowledge).

Taking issue with the common LDS statement "I know" as opposed to "I believe" as part of a testomony is a symantic argument. The average LDS member says "I know" as a colloquial and they have no knowledge of philosophical definitions of knowledge vs. truth vs. belief.

Edited June 30, 2011 by DaddyG

[Pahoran]

Man, I'm not saying they lied, I'm saying that is a MUCH more likely explanation. Do you recognize the difference?

The only practical difference seems to be that you want to go on as if your "more likely" explanation has been established, without actually accepting responsibility for accusing someone of lying.

IOW, it lets you have your cake and eat it too.

Nice try.

Not a failure but I dismiss, NOT the case, but your explanation. Really, nothing different than if you attributed the sun going up every morning to the forces of gnomes or something.

You are quibbling. The investigators said: "We dreamed that you would come." Crazy Glove says, "They lied for the first case about the dream and in the process then got to believe afterwards." Now you are backpedalling, but that's beside the point. "They lied" doesn't dismiss an "explanation," it dismisses the evidence.

Once again, there is NO explanation for the events in the events themselves; there was just a description of the events. We are all looking for an explanation of those events and there OBVIOUSLY are some that are more likely than others.

And the subsequent behaviour of the people reporting the dream supports the explanation that they genuinely experienced it.

You still don't get it. As crazy as you think my explanations are, your are even less believable. That is the whole point. Attributing event X to as many Gods as you can count (not that you do this but I'm just giving an example) is ALWAYS going to be less likely than a mere naturalistic explanation or one that is more parsimonious like those I'm offering. Google what parsimony is, brother, seriously.

Speaking of Google: Ever heard of Eduard Meyer? You might like to Google him. He, you see, was as completely "naturalistic" as you are. He was also something more: a major scholar. He studied and wrote about Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, and he, who did not for a moment believe in God and angels, thought that the most reasonable explanation for Joseph Smith's actions was that he had a real religious vision at a very early period in his life.

Likewise, the most reasonable explanation for the actions of Elder Gui's investigators is that they had the experience they reported. Your dogmatic insistence that they must have lied -- sorry, that "they lied" is somehow more "believable" -- really only comes down to this: that it is more "believable" for you because you don't believe such experiences are or could be real.

It must have been God, then... of Neptune's power, or the influence of fairies. Why not?

Or why not the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or any other adolescent ridicule cliche, that atheists resort to when they are out of arguments?

Since them telling the truth requires something extremely unlike, that is not the most parsimonious explanation.

But it's only "unlike" to you because you don't believe in a God who communicates with people. Your personal scepticism thus becomes an iron-clad rule for determining the reliability of evidence.

The problem you have is that, just because such events are outside of your experience does not mean that they don't happen. Apart from anything else, they are not outside of mine.

That is like if I said aliens visited me when you can clearly detect I used heroin and you defend me because you said "Him telling the truth is the most parsimonious explanation." mmm, sorry but it isn't.

Yet another inapt analogy. We seem to be seeing a lot of them today.

Elder Gui's investigators weren't using heroin and didn't say they were visited by aliens. Thus, you have no reason to suspect chemical influence; you are "multiplying entities," i.e. presuming facts not in evidence in order to shore up your theory. They had a dream in which they saw two guys in white shirts with portfolios coming with a religious message for them; and that's what happened.

What evidence? There is none. There is only a description of the events but no evidence for any explanation. There's no more evidence that God did it to say they lied or gnomes did it or fairies enchanted them or anything else.

Again the resort to ridicule. The fact is that you have no alternative explanation; if you did, you'd have no need to try to dismiss their experience as a lie.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bernard Gui]

We are speaking of a fixed set of events. Events do NOT explain themselves. "That car is moving", "The house is burning", "The tomato is flying", "The book is being read", etc are events. The explanation for each of those events is NOT in those events themselves as I have stated them. As you have stated the events, they do NOT explain themselves. People started crying and believed. Why? You say it was God and I say they sincerely believed with no need for a super-powerful being. From these two explanations one is more likely than the other, clearly.

The tomato was flying because Manolo decided to go to the Tomatina festival, climb into the back of a big truck, pick up a tomato, and launch it at his friend Paco. Can you construct a similar line of explanation for our experience in San Jose or Heredia?

You guys don't have any "scientific" explanation for any of those events and neither can there be since they are well past. Almost any explanation I can come up with will be more plausible than the extremely unlikely explanation you guys came up with. We are NOT speaking of the evidence (since there is none other than a description of the events, not as part of a study) but of the EXPLANATION for those events.

I am willing to hear either your or Mr. Price's or xander's

scientific critique of the two experiences I provided.

Bernard

Edited June 30, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[elguanteloko]

The only practical difference seems to be that you want to go on as if your "more likely" explanation has been established, without actually accepting responsibility for accusing someone of lying.

IOW, it lets you have your cake and eat it too.

Nice try.

lol I'm not even trying for this explanation to be "established" at all. I'm not saying they lied but that this explanation is more likely than the God explanation.

You are quibbling. The investigators said: "We dreamed that you would come." Crazy Glove says, "They lied for the first case about the dream and in the process then got to believe afterwards." Now you are backpedalling, but that's beside the point. "They lied" doesn't dismiss an "explanation," it dismisses the evidence.

If we are investigating you of whether you committed a crime or not... I don't think we would call you the "investigator". Oh, man, you are incredible.

And the subsequent behaviour of the people reporting the dream supports the explanation that they genuinely experienced it.

They could have lied pretty well. That others believed them is no evidence of God doing it.

Speaking of Google: Ever heard of Eduard Meyer? You might like to Google him. He, you see, was as completely "naturalistic" as you are. He was also something more: a major scholar. He studied and wrote about Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, and he, who did not for a moment believe in God and angels, thought that the most reasonable explanation for Joseph Smith's actions was that he had a real religious vision at a very early period in his life.

I'll check him out but he is irrelevant for now.

Likewise, the most reasonable explanation for the actions of Elder Gui's investigators is that they had the experience they reported. Your dogmatic insistence that they must have lied -- sorry, that "they lied" is somehow more "believable" -- really only comes down to this: that it is more "believable" for you because you don't believe such experiences are or could be real.

Everything I can say is about what I think and what I get to believe. Same with you. Now, I really don't see how you are not getting it. I'm not saying the MUST have lied or that spiritual experiences can NOT possibly be real... Nowhere have I said such a thing. All I'm saying is that "they lied" seems more likely than "God did it". Much more parsimonious.

Or why not the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or any other adolescent ridicule cliche, that atheists resort to when they are out of arguments?

They are ridiculous but they illustrate the point. I could accept that a pink unicorn did something if there is enough evidence of it and it is a more likely explanation that its competitors.

But it's only "unlike" to you because you don't believe in a God who communicates with people. Your personal scepticism thus becomes an iron-clad rule for determining the reliability of evidence.

Not really. Scientists all over who also believe in God have no problem with Occam's razor. Actually, William of Occam was a bishop. There is no inconsistency with believing in God and saying "It is the case that "God did it" is not the most likely explanation."

The problem you have is that, just because such events are outside of your experience does not mean that they don't happen. Apart from anything else, they are not outside of mine.

Once again, no one is questioning your experiences but what caused them. I can even accept that the investigators in the case at hand did not lie but they their dream was just a coincidence or that they probably got drunk and saw a mormon card with missionaries in it and both thought the dream came from God. Once again, I'm NOT saying that's what happened but just that those explanations are, BY FAR, much more likely than to think a super-powerful spirit implanted images in their minds.

Yet another inapt analogy. We seem to be seeing a lot of them today.

Elder Gui's investigators weren't using heroin and didn't say they were visited by aliens. Thus, you have no reason to suspect chemical influence; you are "multiplying entities," i.e. presuming facts not in evidence in order to shore up your theory. They had a dream in which they saw two guys in white shirts with portfolios coming with a religious message for them; and that's what happened.

Again the resort to ridicule. The fact is that you have no alternative explanation; if you did, you'd have no need to try to dismiss their experience as a lie.

Nothing in the explanations I've given contradict the events you described, do you realize that? They seem unlikely to you because you already accept God as the explanation but if you take a step back and think about it you will see why that is not a parsimonious explanation to propose.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[mfbukowski]

No communication here either. It really is psychology more than anything. But I will try yet again, but my patience is about gone.

Sorry but this doesn't answer the question at all. I'll repeat it: "do you think ANY of those "catalysts" is God or God's power in some shape or form? Whatever you think the "causes" are and as complex as you think they may be, is God one of those million contributing factors?"

I thought I answered that. Objectively, it cannot be shown that God gives spiritual experiences. Subjectively, I know he does. There is no conflict because these are two totally divorced realms of language. Any statement which starts with "I" is subjective. Any declarative statement is objective. Two different vastly separated contexts linguistically, and that's all we have. Dust off your Wittgenstein and quit misquoting him.

wow, mf, that's not what anyone means by "objective". We mean something that it does not independent of our feelings, emotions, ideas, etc to be what it is. That's quite shaky but that is FAR from being what you are saying. The perception of an apple is not the apple. The apple is what is said to be objective, not the experience of it even though you can only get the experience of it, not the thing that produces the sensations and experiences.

I am not sure what you are saying for sure because please note, the section in blue makes no sense. But no, you are wrong. Again, there is no "apple" independent of everyone's perception of what "apples" are. Again, it appears you do not know what Pragmatism, linguistic constructivism Wittgenstein et al are all about.

You are stuck in a correspondence theory of truth. Read Dewey "On Certainty", read Nagel in my siggy. Objectivity is many people correlating similar observations- it is not some "reality" which cannot be experienced which appears to be what you are discussing.

Again, we are coming from very different philosophical viewpoints, about which you seem to not be aware. An apple is not an apple independent of the experience of the apple- the apple IS the experience. Why do you think there is a world out there somewhere which is beyond experience? I do not believe in such nonsense- all there is is experience- some of it shared and much of it not. What is linguistic is shared experience, the rest is literally "unspeakable" to quote Wittgenstein.

That is why it is so difficult to speak of subjective experience- because if it is subjective it is unspeakable.

We have gotten to the end we always come to. I always think you have actually studied this stuff and understand it, but it always comes down to this.

No insults please, like last time, or there will be ramifications.

[mfbukowski]

All:

I'm about out of here, but I will keep watching and if anything worthwhile pops up I will be back

[elguanteloko]

The tomato was flying because Manolo decided to go to the Tomatina festival, climb into the back of a big truck, pick up a tomato, and launch it at his friend Paco. Can you construct a similar line of explanation for our experience in San Jose or Heredia?

I just did.

I am willing to hear either your or Mr. Price's or xander's

scientific critique of the two experiences I provided.

Bernard

I fell down from my bike when I was 10 years old. Why? I saw about 15 fairies flying about 30 feet from where I was riding my bike and I got distracted; I bumped into a small stone and fell over.

We can't "scientifically critique" it since that was so many years ago. Is the fairy explanation a likely one? Not in comparison with other ones. Actually, any explanation you can come up with to account for these events that does not make so many ludicrous assumptions will be more likely than this explanation for why I fell off my bike.

Is it clearer now?

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

No communication here either. It really is psychology more than anything. But I will try yet again, but my patience is about gone.

I thought I answered that. Objectively, it cannot be shown that God gives spiritual experiences. Subjectively, I know he does. There is no conflict because these are two totally divorced realms of language. Any statement which starts with "I" is subjective. Any declarative statement is objective. Two different vastly separated contexts linguistically, and that's all we have. Dust off your Wittgenstein and quit misquoting him.

So, you think God does in fact cause or promote your religious experience but have no demonstrable evidence. Got it.

BTW, the "why?" question was pretty important. Can you answer it, please?

I am not sure what you are saying for sure because please note, the section in blue makes no sense. But no, you are wrong. Again, there is no "apple" independent of everyone's perception of what "apples" are. Again, it appears you do not know what Pragmatism, linguistic constructivism Wittgenstein et al are all about.

You are stuck in a correspondence theory of truth. Read Dewey "On Certainty", read Nagel in my siggy. Objectivity is many people correlating similar observations- it is not some "reality" which cannot be experienced which appears to be what you are discussing.

A correspondence theory of truth is not the same thing as Realism, mf. I can accept pragmatism and still be a Realist. We need no real access to "what is the case independent of our experiences" to accept it exists whether we are here to see it or not. If we stop existing, whatever produced our experience of the apple would still continue to exist (THE apple, not what we perceive); that is what is objective.

Again, we are coming from very different philosophical viewpoints, about which you seem to not be aware. An apple is not an apple independent of the experience of the apple- the apple IS the experience.

What we mean by the apple is a specific form and texture, etc. Those are experience entirely through the sense. That is one thing and in that sense when we speak of apples we only mean what we experience, that's fine with me.

However, there is a difference between saying that that is all we mean by apple and saying that that is all there exists about the apple or that it is wrong to think that there is something which causes those experiences in me. All you have been saying is that subjective experiences make "what produces the experience of an apple" unknowable or even non-deducible.

Why do you think there is a world out there somewhere which is beyond experience? I do not believe in such nonsense- all there is is experience- some of it shared and much of it not. What is linguistic is shared experience, the rest is literally "unspeakable" to quote Wittgenstein.

Why? Because your position makes of science a miracle, to quote Putnam (as someone has been quoting him in this boards, I don't recall who that person was). To think that the light that hits my retina and all the mechanisms of vision can't be said to give rise to what I name computers and desks and books when I see them, seems to me rather ludicrous. Just as I find it incredibly reasonable to think that LSD produces chemical reactions in my brain that make me hallucinate, there is "stuff" that make me see and that makes me feel though I don't perceive them but I can find out, through science, how the whole of the parts work.

That is why it is so difficult to speak of subjective experience- because if it is subjective it is unspeakable.

When I blink and I see objects going off I think it is reasonable to suppose that light has something to do with my experience of vision and that vision wouldn't be there if light isn't there. To say that light, though partially, cause vision along with other factors, is to state what is as demonstrable as anything is. The options, like the one you are proposing, seem extremely unconvincing. Science has made your view quite incredible.

We have gotten to the end we always come to. I always think you have actually studied this stuff and understand it, but it always comes down to this.

No insults please, like last time, or there will be ramifications.

No need for threats, mf, I think I've been pretty respectful with you.

[Montgomery Price]

Man, how long does it take you to get out of Baskin Robbins? Trust me, vanilla exists and a lot of other flavors too! I don't even know how we got to where you are!

We can trust that there are substances we've labeled vanilla and chocolate exist because of science. The point is that we don't know vanilla and chocolate exist simply because we happen to prefer one. To unwrap the analogy, we can know that vanilla and chocolate can't both exist at the same time. If we are to determine which exists, our personal preference for any one flavor doesn't give us basis for claiming you have knowledge that vanilla or chocolate exist. Unless you resolve the conflict, indecision is the best choice. Again, if you can't resolve a contradiction then why do you behave as if the contradiction is resolved?

I think it has finally happened.

I'm speechless. Let's just say I will let your post stand on its own merits. There is no communication here whatsoever, and it is not for lack of trying- I can tell you that.

I hope you feel better soon, and your stomach feels better! Avoid stress- it's not good for you!

There is no communication because you keep ignoring my argument that there is no reasonable way to resolve a contradiction between truth claims. You insist on pointing out that the methods I propose don't work... yet this doesn't help your case at all. Even if I grant that my method fails, you have yet to provide any method that corrects the contradiction, yet for some reason you follow one path and not the other. For every reason you provide to resolve the contradiction in your favor can also be used to resolve the contradict in the opposite way. So why build your house upon the sand?

You still haven't even tried to answer my question:

We can compare the proposed sources of the experiences, and see that they are mutually exclusive. The only way we can resolve this is by the sort comparison you claim can't happen. What standard that applies to each experience can bring you to one conclusion and not the other?

If there's no basis for comparison, then on what basis do you behave as if they have been compared and one can be considered knowledge and the other not?

[CV75]

And I already did give an example:

Jack believes in God based on personal experience and that this God answers prayers.

Jill believes in God based on personal experience and that this God answers prayers.

Jack asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jack experiences responds with a positive answer.

Jill asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jill experiences responds with a negative answer.

Not good enough; Jack and Jill are not identical people with identical understanding, faith, application and effort. I'll give you one more opportunity to report on an actual observation or study of some kind.

Edited June 30, 2011 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

I just did.

I fell down from my bike when I was 10 years old. Why? I saw about 15 fairies flying about 30 feet from where I was riding my bike and I got distracted; I bumped into a small stone and fell over.

We can't "scientifically critique" it since that was so many years ago. Is the fairy explanation a likely one? Not in comparison with other ones. Actually, any explanation you can come up with to account for these events that does not make so many ludicrous assumptions will be more likely than this explanation for why I fell off my bike.

Is it clearer now?

Well, that let's Joseph Smith off the hook...almost 200 years have passed.

From my point of view, the most parsimonious explanation is those experiences

came from the being that I know as God, or Father in Heaven. I cannot think of a better explanation,

and since no others have been proposed, I'm sticking with my understanding.

Bernard

If you cannot critique it, why are you demanding that I critique it?

Edited June 30, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Montgomery Price]

The tomato was flying because Manolo decided to go to the Tomatina festival, climb into the back of a big truck, pick up a tomato, and launch it at his friend Paco. Can you construct a similar line of explanation for our experience in San Jose or Heredia?

I am willing to hear either your or Mr. Price's or xander's

scientific critique of the two experiences I provided.

Bernard and c

The point is not whether I can explain it, it's whether the claim can be substantiated regardless. Claiming that my explanation doesn't work won't make your explanation any better. It's whether you can provide anything better or anything at all. It's not my job to refute your experience, it's up to you to explain what led you to prefer your miracles over incompatible claims. Even if we grant that we can't explain it, the contradiction requires resolution if you wish to claim that one is knowledge and the other not. Otherwise, your experience remains in question and can therefore not be used to justify a claim to knowledge. But it's quite interesting that many behave as if the contradiction is resolved, yet have failed to justify such exclusive claims to knowledge. Is there any good reason to do so?

[elguanteloko]

Last attempt with you, BG.

Well, that let's Joseph Smith off the hook...almost 200 years have passed.

He's dead and has been "off the hook" for a while now. I'm not saying anyone has to show evidence of anything (in the sense that they have an obligation) but if you want your explanation to be more plausible than other explanations, you have to make some changes. "God did it" and "A super-powerful spirit did it" need massive amounts of evidence for the same reason than "fairies did it" or "gnomes put all that money that was stolen yesterday's bank robbery in my house" need massive amounts of evidence. Sorry but until then I will either suspend judgment or say your explanation sounds ridiculous.

From my point of view, the most parsimonious explanation is those experiences

came from the being that I know as God, or Father in Heaven. I cannot think of a better explanation,

and since no others have been proposed, I'm sticking with my understanding.

Then you don't know what parsimony is. The explanations I propose (for instructive purposes) don't add any powers we have no reliable evidence for, no beings we have no reliable evidence for, no places (heaven) we have no reliable evidence for. The more entities and powers and things of the sort you add to your explanation, the higher the likelihood of being wrong. Since I add no such things then my explanation is more likely than yours.

Clear enough?

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Deborah]

The point is not whether I can explain it, it's whether the claim can be substantiated regardless. C

No the point is that it is substantiated to the person who has experienced it and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about it.

[Montgomery Price]

Not good enough; Jack and Jill are not identical people with identical understanding, faith, application and effort. I'll give you one more opportunity to report on an actual observation or study of some kind.

Of course they're not identical. If they were identical, they would have received the same answer. The point is that they didn't receive the same answer, so there must be some difference between the two that explains the discrepancy. I'm challenging everyone to explain what that difference is, and how you've determined that this difference justifies one to testify knowledge and the other not.

Jack has faith in a God that guided him to Mormons.

Jill has a faith in a God that guided her away from Mormonism.

Without fallaciously appealing to the source in question, what can be added to the scenario to resolve the conflict?

[Montgomery Price]

No the point is that it is substantiated to the person who has experienced it and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about it.

You haven't explained how an experience is substantiated such that you justify a specific conclusion, and not a contradictory one.

What explanation do you have for following your spiritual experiences that wouldn't also provide excuse for someone else to follow an incompatible experience?

If your justification leads to discrepant conclusions, then we have no reason to believe the justification works. If your explanation fails to resolve the contradiction, then on what basis do you claim you have knowledge?

[Deborah]

What explanation do you have for following your spiritual experiences that wouldn't also provide excuse for someone else to follow an incompatible experience?

Because that is their experience not mine. It doesn't matter what they follow if that's where they feel they should go.

[Montgomery Price]

Because that is their experience not mine. It doesn't matter what they follow if that's where they feel they should go.

And anyone could feel they should follow something false, including you. If you could possibly be wrong, your justification deserves investigation. You believe, based on doctrine and revelation, that there is a straight and narrow path that leads to ultimate glory and many paths that do not. Yet when we evaluate your justification, it always leads to contradictory answers from different people. If your justification produces contradictory results, then the justification fails as far as we can tell and anyone who acts on a faulty justification is just building their house upon the sand. What is so special about you that can't be applied to others in a equivalent way?

You may not find it unnecessary to consider contradictory experiences, yet the justification for those contradictory experiences are just as good as yours if you insist on using personal subjective experiences as evidence. So if your justification also justifies something contradictory, for what good reason do you behave as if there is no contradiction?

[Bernard Gui]

Last attempt with you, BG.

Thank you for your instruction.

Bernard

[mfbukowski]

To unwrap the analogy, we can know that vanilla and chocolate can't both exist at the same time. If we are to determine which exists, our personal preference for any one flavor doesn't give us basis for claiming you have knowledge that vanilla or chocolate exist. Unless you resolve the conflict, indecision is the best choice. Again, if you can't resolve a contradiction then why do you behave as if the contradiction is resolved?

Chocolate and vanilla can't exist at once? You're scaring me dude.

You still haven't even tried to answer my question:

If there's no basis for comparison, then on what basis do you behave as if they have been compared and one can be considered knowledge and the other not?

No need to yell. I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not recall using the word "knowledge" and I am not sure what we are comparing here. It helps to use full sentences without pronouns, like "they" "one" or the "other".

Please write a full sentence with nouns in the usual places if you want people to understand you. It also helps to link to the post you are quoting. This has been a long thread.

[elguanteloko]

Thank you for your instruction.

Bernard

My pleasure.