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

[TAO]

I must agree with DaddyG... I definitely don't use limited source of information. I just adapt. If I find something I can't adapt around, I know it is stable. If I can adapt around it, it isn't stable enough to be a good criticism of my religion.

[Honorentheos]

I know this was not addressed to me, but you have said similar things to me right in this thread.

You have so limited your vision that you cannot see.

So you've changed your position in regards to Mormon history? Does it now have value and should be studied regardless of where it may lead? Or considered the impacts on Mormon beliefs and their modification as advances in human understanding of geology, biology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, neuroscience and many other fields have expanded? That a reasoned study of the bible shows the Mormon concepts of biblical truths and mistranslation are simply unjustifiable and are, at worse, carry overs of catholic ideas that were used in defining the canon? That, in no way have you really addressed the issues but continue to maintain that they simply do not matter because you have a faith in something that makes sense to you? Yet,...

I haven't closed my mind to the concept of the spirit, MFB. You wrongly argue my position is the same as the one from which you came to Mormonism. I am a strong agnostic for a reason - there are things that I agree are outside of our current understanding. Unfortunately, I do not think the human origins of the Mormon faith fall in that catagory. I feel, and strongly, that taking in the whole of the argument being presented against Mormonism requires a person to make the same statements being made in this thread - in the end the person has to choose: accept the whole of the evidence including other peoples expereinces with the so-called spirit in other faiths (or no faith system at all) along with the body of evidence against Mormonism having a claim to an exclusive path to the divine; or place the subjective experience of the Moroni Promise over the evidence.

The thing is, MFB, faith is a choice. I've asked before, and I'll ask again - how do you choose which sources to accept and which to reject?

[Honorentheos]

I just can't stop re-reading this statement. I'm stunned at how arrogant it sounds.

Do you really think that Mormons only believe as they do because they have limited their sources of information? That's a pretty damning accusation that lacks any shred of evidence and doesn't bear out given the LDS penchant for education of all kinds.

DaddyG,

A year or so ago, I was challenged on this board to prove that the church had changed its position on anything because I had generated a rather long list of just such items.

I accepted the challenge and took, without pre-screening, the one from the very top of the list - the origin of man (i.e. - did mankind evolve?).

Do you know what the current position of the church is regarding the origin of man? Do you know what it was during the life time of Joseph Smith?

It's been a while since Cinepro had a thread about the reality of a global flood I believe. Would you care to start one and see how well most members accept all valid sources of information? It might be enlightening.

[Storm Rider]

So you've changed your position in regards to Mormon history? Does it now have value and should be studied regardless of where it may lead? Or considered the impacts on Mormon beliefs and their modification as advances in human understanding of geology, biology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, neuroscience and many other fields have expanded? That a reasoned study of the bible shows the Mormon concepts of biblical truths and mistranslation are simply unjustifiable and are, at worse, carry overs of catholic ideas that were used in defining the canon? That, in no way have you really addressed the issues but continue to maintain that they simply do not matter because you have a faith in something that makes sense to you? Yet,...

I haven't closed my mind to the concept of the spirit, MFB. You wrongly argue my position is the same as the one from which you came to Mormonism. I am a strong agnostic for a reason - there are things that I agree are outside of our current understanding. Unfortunately, I do not think the human origins of the Mormon faith fall in that catagory. I feel, and strongly, that taking in the whole of the argument being presented against Mormonism requires a person to make the same statements being made in this thread - in the end the person has to choose: accept the whole of the evidence including other peoples expereinces with the so-called spirit in other faiths (or no faith system at all) along with the body of evidence against Mormonism having a claim to an exclusive path to the divine; or place the subjective experience of the Moroni Promise over the evidence.

The thing is, MFB, faith is a choice. I've asked before, and I'll ask again - how do you choose which sources to accept and which to reject?

Why would any LDS not study Church history and the history of its leaders? Why do you think Latter-day Saints deny the experience of those in other faiths? We do accept them. We believe all have truth in varying degrees some more than others. I would also say that we can learn much from their spiritual history and the practice of their religion. How could I not believe this way when there is only one source of truth?

I am not sure you have as deep a grasp of the LDS position as you think.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Storm Rider

[mfbukowski]

The thing is, MFB, faith is a choice. I've asked before, and I'll ask again - how do you choose which sources to accept and which to reject?

I accept all and reject none. I especially include the Spirit which generally trumps most everything else. Though I wasn't always this way- as I have described.

I have been a philosophical Pragmatist for 40 years. I have been a Mormon for 30 years. I have been around the block a few times on all these issues- and weighed all the "evidence", rationally and spiritually.

Trust me, I have heard every possible argument, and evaluated all of them. What's your point?

How do I decide? I decide by what feels right in my mind AND heart. How many times do I have to tell you that? THAT is "subjective experience"- the only way any of us decide anything of importance.

Edited July 12, 2011 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

DaddyG,

A year or so ago, I was challenged on this board to prove that the church had changed its position on anything because I had generated a rather long list of just such items.

I accepted the challenge and took, without pre-screening, the one from the very top of the list - the origin of man (i.e. - did mankind evolve?).

Do you know what the current position of the church is regarding the origin of man? Do you know what it was during the life time of Joseph Smith?

It's been a while since Cinepro had a thread about the reality of a global flood I believe. Would you care to start one and see how well most members accept all valid sources of information? It might be enlightening.

False dichotomies again? Have there not been enough threads on these? If one believes in the false dichotomy and has a strong enough spiritual experience they can reject some area of science. I think that the problem lies with the false dichotomy though, not with the spiritual experience(s).

I accept current geology, evolution, etc. I also accept the church. I also accept my spiritual experiences. Imagine that..

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

A year or so ago, I was challenged on this board to prove that the church had changed its position on anything because I had generated a rather long list of just such items.

I accepted the challenge and took, without pre-screening, the one from the very top of the list - the origin of man (i.e. - did mankind evolve?).

Do you know what the current position of the church is regarding the origin of man? Do you know what it was during the life time of Joseph Smith?

It's been a while since Cinepro had a thread about the reality of a global flood I believe. Would you care to start one and see how well most members accept all valid sources of information? It might be enlightening.

The Church changes its position on things all the time. That is different from God changing. You see we Latter-day Saints learn as individuals and as an institution. All you have to do is look to the Official Declarations to see some significant changes in our practices to align with the doctrines of God which we still learn line by line and precept by precept.

Regarding the origin of man. We simply don't know it all. Some members are likely to be stubborn about their own view of the origins and declare to you that others don't follow God, but that is a false reading of the Church in general. Are you aware of the evolution debates held by the Apostles in the middle of the last century and their conclusion. The conclusion was a letter from the first Presidency that said the issue is not central to our salvation and not worth debate, we simply don't know enough.

LDS views on the subject will vary. That is our right and our agency. If we seek to know more we use the tools of science and revelation. If they are not currently able to form a complete picture then we simply lack the information that will come out in the time when science and God will reveal more.

I have seen theories on global vs. local flood. Both have validity. Neither have any bearing on our salvation.

You seem to think that the Saints changing their positions to accomodate new knowledge is somehow an issue or invalidates our belief in revelation. It is not.

We are not Biblical literalists, or even D&C literalists. We know we see but through a glass darkly and we seek truth wherever it is to be found.

Certainly we have weakness when accepting new things and having our traditions shown to be flawed, even Brigham said the Saints shatter like glass when confronted with new doctrines. This is a human failing that we seek to overcome by having access to revelation and truth. It does not reside in us rather in its own sphere, and we can access that truth through God who is perfect and Has perfect knowledge.

Go ahead and start any topic about changes or debates in LDS culture, practice, teachings and doctrines. If we have corrected erronious beleifs from the past that makes us stronger and more enlightened. However it does not make the revelations and works of our earlier prophets and people any less miraculous and blessed.

Just be careful you do not continue to assume the Saints as a people are ignorant of science, logic or even our own doctrines and practices. That blinds you by your own prejudice to something far beyond what you have experienced or have knowledge of.

[Deborah]

Why is it if someone chooses not to reject the Church and its teachings that they have somehow limited their sources of information and refused to look at other sources? That is utter nonsense. Most LDS I know are very well educated believe it or not. There are lawyers and doctors and scientists, some quite famous, and businessmen and women. There are people who have Bachelor degrees and Masters and even Doctorates. Yet somehow their education is limited because they still believe the impossible claims of Mormonism.

What critics should ask is why intelligent, educated people should accept such claims even at the mockery of others. There must be more to the story than they are seeing. And of course there is.

[Montgomery Price]

MP has added more rungs to his ladder of logic.

I guess he thinks it now reaches higher than before..

Then it seems you would have no problem dealing with my argument formally:

(1) A religious experience can carry with it a "stamp" which validates certain religious truth claims and invalidate others.

(2) It is reported that many different "stamps" have validated contradictory religious truths.

(3) Therefore, all "stamps" cannot be genuine.

(4) Because you've provided no way to determine whether a "stamp" is genuine, we have no standard to determine that any truth which purports to be verified by a "stamp" actually is.

(5) Mormonism makes claims to truth which purport to be verified by this "stamp".

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Mormonism, as verified by the "stamp", must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

Now, don't misunderstand again. I am not declaring all "stamps" to be invalid. The argument is that we have no way to determine whether a "stamp" is valid or invalid. This justifies the rejection, that is, we have no way to determine whether Mormonism, or any other faith which purports to be verified by a "stamp", to be true.

I could argue even further that because the prime epistemic test prescribed by Mormonism, defended as the ultimate verification superseding any other evidence, doesn't recognizably produce knowledge, this constitutes a fatal flaw in Mormonism. But that's up to you...

[shalamabobbi]

Then it seems you would have no problem dealing with my argument formally:

(1) A religious experience can carry with it a "stamp" which validates certain religious truth claims and invalidate others.

(2) It is reported that many different "stamps" have validated contradictory religious truths.

(3) Therefore, all "stamps" cannot be genuine.

(4) Because you've provided no way to determine whether a "stamp" is genuine, we have no standard to determine that any truth which purports to be verified by a "stamp" actually is.

(5) Mormonism makes claims to truth which purport to be verified by this "stamp".

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Mormonism, as verified by the "stamp", must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

Now, don't misunderstand again. I am not declaring all "stamps" to be invalid. The argument is that we have no way to determine whether a "stamp" is valid or invalid. This justifies the rejection, that is, we have no way to determine whether Mormonism, or any other faith which purports to be verified by a "stamp", to be true.

I could argue even further that because the prime epistemic test prescribed by Mormonism, defended as the ultimate verification superseding any other evidence, doesn't recognizably produce knowledge, this constitutes a fatal flaw in Mormonism. But that's up to you...

Let's perform a transformation upon your argument. Are you familiar with mathematical transformations?

Let: a religous experience -> a scientific experiment

a stamp -> experimental results

a religious truth claim -> a scientific theory

LDSism -> Relativity

Applying this transformation to your argument we get:

(1) A scientific experiment can yield experimental results which validates certain scientific theories and invalidates others.

(2) It is reported that many different experimental results have validated contradictory theories.

(3) Therefore all experimental results cannot be genuine.

(4) Because you've provided no way to determine whether the results of an experiment are genuine, we have no standard to determine that any theory which purports to be verified by an experimental result actually is.

(5) Relativity makes claims to be a theory verified by experimental results.

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Relativity, as verified by experimental results must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

Now don't misunderstand again. I am not declaring all experimental results to be invalid. The argument is that we have no way to determine whether an experimental result is valid or invalid. This justifies the rejection, that is, we have no way to determine whether Relativity, or any other theory which purports to be verified by experimental results, to be true.

I could argue even further that because the prime epistemic test prescribed by science, defended as the ultimate verification superseding any other evidence, doesn't recognizably produce knowledge, this constitutes a fatal flaw in science. But that's up to you...

Note: As a proof of (2) note the claims to over unity machines and the like..

Show me your reasons why the transformed argument fails to be a valid argument against the theory of relativity, and I'll show you the reverse transformed reasons why the original argument fails to be a valid argument against the LDS religion.

Edited July 13, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Montgomery Price]

Let's perform a transformation upon your argument. Are you familiar with mathematical transformations?

Sorry, when I asked you to deal with the argument formally, I meant actually address the argument made, not a "transformation" whose critical differences are clear. I guess you'd rather demonstrate your lack of understanding of science than deal with my argument directly. Okidoke, it'll only further illustrate my contention.

It's a bit silly how you treat me as if I'm held to some Doctrine of Science and I'll be so bothered that my argument against religious experience is somehow also an argument against science. That only works with the faithful. Tellingly, you didn't point out where the line of reasoning fails. If had you applied the ideas of science properly, I wouldn't really care if "science" was refuted because the logic is sound. But unfortunately for you, the argument against religious experience remains even after, as I will demonstrate, the same argument applied to science fails.

Let: a religous experience -> a scientific experiment

One of the key elements of a scientific experiment is that it allows for possible failure. It doesn't purport to always be functional. I don't believe you can provide a way in which Moroni's Promise could possibly fail. Only that the test taker could fail to meet prerequisites in some way. A scientific experiment could be flawed. How could a religious experience possibly be flawed? Because that is my argument. This difference is critical concerning (4). Because you haven't provided any possible way a religious experience could be flawed in a manner useful to (4), this obviously cripples any determination of which "stamps" are genuine. A scientific experiment does not have this problem.

a stamp -> experimental results

Yes. Like experimental results, a stamp could or could not be reliable. Are you suggesting that a stamp could or could not be reliable? This is certainly nothing new concerning science. Except that science has a solution for this problem, and "stamps" currently do not.

a religious truth claim -> a scientific hypothesis

Corrected that for you...

LDSism -> Relativity

Whatever you like...

Applying this transformation to your argument we get:

(1) A scientific experiment can yield experimental results which support certain scientific hypotheses and lessens support of others.

Now that it's accurate, I have no issue with it. Experimental results only support certain hypotheses and lessen support of others, instead of the more definite "validation" characterized by religious experience. Plain experimental results don't always settle the question like a religious experience supposedly does.

(2) It is reported that many different experimental results have supported contradictory hypotheses.

(3) Therefore all relevant experimental results cannot be genuine.

If different experimental results support contradictory hypotheses then those results and hypotheses are brought into question... Just as "stamps" and the claims they purport to validate should be brought into question. I see no issue with this. Are you sure that you're refuting my argument against religious experience? It seems to me you're just assisting in its elucidation.

You'll notice that I added the word "relevant" to (3). This clarifies another critical difference you've overlooked in (4), and can also be added to my argument against religious experience.

(4) Because you've provided no way to determine whether the results of an experiment are genuine, we have no standard to determine that any hypothesis which purports to be supported by the relevant experimental result actually is.

Now, why would you go and declare that I haven't provided any way to determine this without first asking me? Oh well, doesn't matter. It doesn't harm my argument like you think it does.

If there is no successful test we can construct to determine if our results are reliable, then science takes no issue with declaring those certain results unreliable or their targeted hypotheses questioned. Nothing new. It would be science doing what science does. Religious experiences, on the contrary, have a serious problem when their "stamps" can't be relied upon. It defeats their purpose. Religion is not interested in continuously attempting to prove itself wrong.

You'll notice I added "relevant" again. This is to again clarify why your flattering attempt to direct my argument against experimentation fails to function as strongly as my argument against religious experience. You can't use my argument to categorically refute all attempts at experimentation because all experiments aren't necessarily relevant to all other experiments. If a flawed experiment concerning populations of Bonobos fails to produce reliable results, this has no application to the reliability of the endless set of irrelevant, distinctively constructed experiments. It will have nothing to do with separate experiments concerning bugs, planets, nuclear energy... whatever. Experimentation is not refuted as you think because that would require all experiments to concern themselves with the same sets of contradictory results and hypotheses, which is clearly not the case.

But this clearly is more or less the case with religious experience, precisely because we can't determine whether a "stamp" is genuine. I wouldn't be so bold to claim that all religious experience concerns itself with the same sets of religious truth claims (what is the best path, which supernatural entities exist, what book is inspired by those entities, etc.), but the majority do. (Sparing technicalities, it was a point of convenience to leave out the distinction. I have no issue making that distinction from now on.) This could be a strict contradiction, that is, most religious experiences purport to validate certain religious claims and by extension, invalidate the claims relevant to most other religious experiences. Or this could be the equally problematic dilemma of determining which of overlapping paths up truth mountain have more support, when most religious experiences support distinct paths. These are each problematic because if we can't determine which religious experiences have a genuine "stamp", we therefore can't determine which of the paths or truth claims are to be preferred. Even if they do overlap, some are declared the superior, but we have no way to prefer them as such.

(5) Relativity makes claims to be a theory verified by certain experimental results.

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Relativity, as verified by those experimental results in question, must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

And now that the wording is more precise, my argument remains standing.

Now don't misunderstand again. I am not declaring all experimental results to be invalid. The argument is that we have no way to determine whether any relevant experimental result supports or lessens support of the relevant hypothesis. This justifies the rejection, that is, we have no way to determine whether Relativity, or any other theory which purports to be supported by the relevant experimental results, to be, in fact, supported.

What you're trying to accomplish really just falls apart after you've helped refine my argument...

I could argue even further that because the prime epistemic test prescribed by science, defended as the ultimate verification superseding any other evidence, doesn't recognizably produce knowledge, this constitutes a fatal flaw in science. But that's up to you...

Now, this is plainly ridiculous. I'm not so sure that experimentation is exactly an epistemic test or that it is defended as ultimate verification, but it does certainly aid in the recognizable production of very useful knowledge. For this reason it also doesn't constitute a fatal flaw in science, because unlike religion, science doesn't claim that their prime epistemic test is always reliable. To treat science as if it's bound to some Doctrine is plainly absurd if you'd just stop to think about it first...

Mormonism is bound to doctrine. One of those doctrines is that a certain epistemic test, when used according to prerequisites, will produce knowledge. Mormonism fails to substantiate this claim.

Show me your reasons why the transformed argument fails to be a valid argument against the theory of relativity, and I'll show you the reverse transformed reasons why the original argument fails to be a valid argument against the LDS religion.

Done. Feel free to provide those reasons now.

I'll post it again with the added clarification, and maybe you can try a third time...

(1) A religious experience can carry with it a "stamp" which validates certain religious truth claims and invalidate others.

(2) It is reported that many different "stamps" have validated contradictory religious truths.

(3) Therefore, all relevant "stamps" cannot each be genuine.

(4) Because you've provided no way to determine whether a "stamp" is genuine, we have no standard to determine that any truth which purports to be verified by those relevant "stamps" actually is.

(5) Mormonism makes claims to truth which purport to be verified by these "stamps" which are in question.

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Mormonism, as verified by those "stamps" in question, must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

Now, don't misunderstand again. I am not declaring all "stamps" to be invalid. The argument is that we have no way to determine whether the relevant "stamp" is valid or invalid. This justifies the rejection, that is, we have no way to determine whether Mormonism, or any other faith which purports to be verified by those relevant "stamps", to be true.

I could argue even further that because the prime epistemic test prescribed by Mormonism, defended as the ultimate verification superseding any other evidence, doesn't recognizably produce knowledge, this constitutes a fatal flaw in Mormonism. But that's up to you...

Edited July 14, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[shalamabobbi]

Experimentation is not refuted as you think..

You've misunderstood what I am saying. This is not my position.

Now try again..

[Montgomery Price]

You've misunderstood what I am saying. This is not my position.

Now try again..

Then what is your position... Could it have been addressed in the ample and clear explanations I just provided, which you've completely ignored?

Do you really think this response is adequate? It's honestly a bit pathetic. Just address the argument directly. It shouldn't be this difficult.

Let me guess... You mean to clarify that your position is that my argument would refute all experimental results if you didn't believe it to be a flawed argument, for reasons you attempted to give, but failed.

I have already demonstrated that I understand this. You would be very aware of this fact if you had actually read my post instead of glazing over it ineffectively.

Shalamabobbi,

If this is really your only response to the extensive refutation of your thoughts I just gave, I can't imagine how you can consider yourself honestly engaged in the analysis of your own beliefs.

I hope it's not your only response. I hope you'll share that response, as well.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[shalamabobbi]

Then what is your position...

MP - You seem to miss multiple things.

If it is not too delicate a question, are you a biologist?

I am guessing, since you seemed to miss the concept behind mathematical transforms. Biologists are the only scientists I've interacted with that are as particular as you are to distinguish between a hypothesis and a theory.

[Montgomery Price]

MP - You seem to miss multiple things.

If it is not too delicate a question, are you a biologist?

I am guessing, since you seemed to miss the concept behind mathematical transforms. Biologists are the only scientists I've interacted with that are as particular as you are to distinguish between a hypothesis and a theory.

You've accused me several times of misunderstanding and just as many times I've requested that you demonstrate this, preferably by addressing my argument directly. This conversation is about my argument, is it not? Your persistent evasion of the content of my response is only exposing what seems to be your failure to understand it. Prove me wrong. Please, explain.

And no, I'm not a biologist. Most scientists do make the critical distinction between scientific hypothesis and theory, as all should, biologist or otherwise. I'm only 18, but I intend to study Neuroscience at a University starting this year. I've done my best to educate myself in the meantime. I'm open to any education you wish to offer... that is, after you're done avoiding its disclosure.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Honorentheos]

I accept all and reject none. I especially include the Spirit which generally trumps most everything else. Though I wasn't always this way- as I have described.

I have been a philosophical Pragmatist for 40 years. I have been a Mormon for 30 years. I have been around the block a few times on all these issues- and weighed all the "evidence", rationally and spiritually.

Trust me, I have heard every possible argument, and evaluated all of them. What's your point?

How do I decide? I decide by what feels right in my mind AND heart. How many times do I have to tell you that? THAT is "subjective experience"- the only way any of us decide anything of importance.

MFB,

Perhaps it is best if we acknowledge this is the best we can hope for in finding a point of common ground - We can acknowledge that we all make choices and weigh the evidence by what seems best through feeling and our best efforts at being rational. You may contend this is what you have been saying all along. While I disagree, I find my interest level has fallen too low to argue beyond this point further.

[Honorentheos]

What critics should ask is why intelligent, educated people should accept such claims even at the mockery of others. There must be more to the story than they are seeing. And of course there is.

Not just critics, but I think all of us should wonder this same thing. There is a certain area of study regarding why smart people maintain improbable beliefs or do otherwise irrational things and it's quite facinating.

[Honorentheos]

Applying this transformation to your argument we get:

(1) A scientific experiment can yield experimental results which validates certain scientific theories and invalidates others.

(2) It is reported that many different experimental results have validated contradictory theories.

(3) Therefore all experimental results cannot be genuine.

(4) Because you've provided no way to determine whether the results of an experiment are genuine, we have no standard to determine that any theory which purports to be verified by an experimental result actually is.

(5) Relativity makes claims to be a theory verified by experimental results.

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Relativity, as verified by experimental results must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

Point 3 is wrong. It doesn't mean the results aren't genuine. It means the theory was wrong or incomplete.

Point 4 is wrong. Within the scientific method, repeatability of an experiment by third parties with consistent results is a means of verifying if the results of an experiment are valid.

If you understood this, you would see why MP's OP is pointing out a very valid problem with relying on the Moroni Promise.

I have to admit, your transformation was informative in revealing the flaws in your way of thinking. Thanks for doing it.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

To clarify, I think that we need to acknowledge that religious experiences are "genuine", but that this has no bearing on what they mean. As the transformation shows, the flaw is not in the results, it's in the theory proposed.

In the case of the OP, the Moroni Promise is the experiment that would yield certain results. Given that people who apply the promise do not get consistent results, and people who apply different experiments get comparable results though they interpret them different, shows us the theory is causing an interpretation that only is valid so long as we do not expand our testing to different groups, include controls, etc.

[shalamabobbi]

A mathematical transform reveals the abstraction of the structure of the argument.

It allows talking about the merits of the argument itself without having to worry about what it is being applied to.

If there are faults with the transformed argument, the faults are with the logic of the argument itself.

Point 3 is wrong. It doesn't mean the results aren't genuine. It means the theory was wrong or incomplete.

Point 4 is wrong. Within the scientific method, repeatability of an experiment by third parties with consistent results is a means of verifying if the results of an experiment are valid.

To transform back again..

Likewise point 3 is wrong in the original argument. (3)Therefore, all "stamps" cannot be genuine.

To quote you, "It doesn't mean the results aren't genuine. It means the religious truth claim was wrong or incomplete.

Likewise point 4 is wrong in the original argument. Within religion, repeatability of a religious experience by third parties with consistent results is a means of verifying if the results of a religious experience are valid.

And there you go. You are revealing that the same principals you allow for the purposes of science you deny for other ways of knowing.

[shalamabobbi]

To clarify, I think that we need to acknowledge that religious experiences are "genuine", but that this has no bearing on what they mean. As the transformation shows, the flaw is not in the results, it's in the theory proposed.

Transforming back:

To clarify, I think that we need to acknowledge that scientific experiments can be "genuine", but that this has no bearing on what they mean. As the transformation shows, the flaw is not in the stamp, it's in the religious truth claim proposed.

[shalamabobbi]

In the case of the OP, the Moroni Promise is the experiment that would yield certain results. Given that people who apply the promise do not get consistent results, and people who apply different experiments get comparable results though they interpret them different, shows us the theory is causing an interpretation that only is valid so long as we do not expand our testing to different groups, include controls, etc.

It is claimed that the Theory of Relativity is correct. However people interpret the results in various ways and we do not get consistent interpretations unless we limit the group doing the interpreting to those who agree already that the theory is correct and the interpretation correct.

http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html

http://www.norelativity.com/index.php?/archives/1-WHY-THE-RELATIVITY-THEORY-IS-FALSE.html

http://www.neiu.edu/~rjswartz/Miscellaneous/Two%20Paradoxes.html

www.wbabin.net/weuro/anderton75.pdf

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6197

note: I am not arguing against science or relativity. That is Honor's misunderstanding as well as MPs.

[Honorentheos]

Transforming back:

To clarify, I think that we need to acknowledge that scientific experiments can be "genuine", but that this has no bearing on what they mean. As the transformation shows, the flaw is not in the stamp, it's in the religious truth claim proposed.

No, you misplaced stamps with scientific experiments. Stamps, as MP used them, are genuine in the subjective sense as we have been hashing out in this thread. I disagreed with MP's statement 3 as well. It's the theories and the use of the experiments that are in question.

Go back to your transformation.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Montgomery Price]

A mathematical transform reveals the abstraction of the structure of the argument.

It allows talking about the merits of the argument itself without having to worry about what it is being applied to.

If there are faults with the transformed argument, the faults are with the logic of the argument itself.

To transform back again..

Likewise point 3 is wrong in the original argument. (3)Therefore, all "stamps" cannot be genuine.

To quote you, "It doesn't mean the results aren't genuine. It means the religious truth claim was wrong or incomplete.

Likewise point 4 is wrong in the original argument. Within religion, repeatability of a religious experience by third parties with consistent results is a means of verifying if the results of a religious experience are valid.

And there you go. You are revealing that the same principals you allow for the purposes of science you deny for other ways of knowing.

I understood the concept. If you've read my post, you could show that you are aware of this by responding to my demonstration that there are no faults in the logic of the argument, you simply did not apply your transformation properly. And just as important, you could address the reasons why your argument against Relativity doesn't work, when my argument against Mormonism does.

Are you planning on more evasion? Are you going to continue to ignore my perfectly reasonable requests?

You've misunderstood my argument in the same way I've been warning you against. (3) is not meant to preclude the validation of "stamps" as you have mistakenly interpreted once again. What I mean (it's very odd this isn't obvious to you by now...) is that all "stamps" can't each be genuine. Some could, but the crucial point of (3) is that we know some are not. This was already implied. Bringing it up is moot.

And if you're claiming that (4) can be corrected by "repeatability of a religious experience by third parties with consistent results" then I challenge you to address what is clearly otherwise. That is, the repeatedly inconsistent results of religious experiences by third parties which you've provided no way to determine which are to be preferred.

When science meets this problem, scientists attempt to determine which of inconsistent results are to be preferred or preferred at all. When it comes to a theory such as Relativity, the determination of which results are to be preferred is largely argued successfully, and when it's not... those relevant portions of the theory are still in question. There's no problem with this. My logic is still sound. The same issue applied to the original argument against religious experience is still problematic.

Also, do you even accept that these experiences can be judged because their so personal and subjective? Are you one of those who believes analysis is useless because we can never transfer our subjective experiences to others?

Aaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd still, I'm waiting for your response to the many comments I gave on your thoughts in this post.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Honorentheos]

It is claimed that the Theory of Relativity is correct. However people interpret the results in various ways and we do not get consistent interpretations unless we limit the group doing the interpreting to those who agree already that the theory is correct and the interpretation correct.

...

note: I am not arguing against science or relativity. That is Honor's misunderstanding as well as MPs.

No, Sham. Again, the theory of relativity is incomplete as demonstrated by the results of experiment and mathematics. It has more explanatory power than Newtonian physics with better predictive results. But it is exactly as I stated in the revised point 3. 1 and 2 show that the theory is either wrong or incomplete. Relativity falls in this category as does our current, very young understanding of Quantum Mechanics.