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

[Montgomery Price]

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.

What I meant by not all "stamps" are genuine is exactly your position. It's clear when you interpret the statement as I meant it, being that "genuine" would mean that the claims which the "stamps" purport to validate actually are recognizably validated. Not that the stamps are or are not genuine in the subjective sense. This was already given.

Corrected:

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

That is, every proposed "stamp" can't all validate what they purport to validate. Some could be genuine, but we also know some are not.

What I meant from the beginning, but I suppose had to be clarified...

Edited July 14, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Honorentheos]

MP -

I think you are on the right track. But I think we can still change 3 to simply acknowledge that the stamp (or experience) is genuine. I would correct it to be (3)Therefore, all "stamps" may be genuine, but their predictive power is limited to the subjective under the isolated interpretation of a single religious truth claim.

With that in mind, sham got it right when he transformed my statement using the modified 3 -

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[shalamabobbi]

Sorry, my girlfriend rushed me out the door to the movies. I didn't get the time to spend on this that I wanted.

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.

Let: a religious experience -> a scientific experiment

a stamp -> experimental results

a religious truth claim -> a scientific theory

LDSism -> Relativity

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.

Not seeing the error. A stamp is the results.

But you're not seeing the point. It is as you said, you disagreed with MP's statement 3 as well. This is about MP's argument. It is flawed. That is what the transformation is meant to illustrate. Not that what he is trying to convey about religious experiences is correct or incorrect, but the argument he thinks proves it is flawed. And it is not about the validity of the scientific method or the theory of Relativity. It is to illustrate that the argument is wrong, nothing more.

Edited July 14, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[shalamabobbi]

MP -

I think you are on the right track. But I think we can still change 3 to simply acknowledge that the stamp (or experience) is genuine. I would correct it to be (3)Therefore, all "stamps" may be genuine, but their predictive power is limited to the subjective under the isolated interpretation of a single religious truth claim.

With that in mind, sham got it right when he transformed my statement using the modified 3 -

Couldn't have said it better myself.

And religious experiences are repeatable. I have mine, DaddyG has his, mfbukowski has his, other members have theirs, etc. The fact that you can't do it in a controlled setting means nothing. God is not simply an automaton, a force as gravity, that must respond the same for all regardless of the sincerity and willingness to commitment on the part of each individual. He is our Father and deals with each of us differently as He sees best.

[shalamabobbi]

I understood the concept. If you've read my post,..

MP, The transformation was meant as a tool to help you see where your argument was lacking. By using it in an arena I thought you had experience in I thought you might see the point. But since you don't have any experience or training as yet (and I am wondering how much Honor has based on the fact that he missed the point of this as well, not that it matters to the argument, but you brought it up) I don't suppose this has helped you much.

The only thing you have that I and others have already conceded is that this is not something that can be concluded within a scientific paradigm. Religion will never be science until the test of faith is past.

Those who have had the experience know whereof they speak. You can deny this all you like, but that is all it will ever be, a denial. Something you must assume to be true.

This type of argument among the young is legion and if one existed it would be on the books already.

For this reason I am not inclined to be whipped into tearing each one apart as I come across them anymore than I feel the need to analyze and critique every claim to over unity that exists in the world..

But if you truly come up with something that looks a bit more solid than what you've presented so far, I may be tempted again, otherwise it is like playing chess against a young talent with nothing left on the board but the pair of kings, and having him continually advance his upon me thinking there is a way to win..

Oh and good luck with your schooling. Looks like you will soon not have time anymore to be posting on the board..

Edited July 14, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Montgomery Price]

Shalamabobbi,

It's time you stop ignoring my explanations. I have long understood what you're trying to accomplish with the transformation and have already explained why your evaluation of my argument is flawed. Despite your continual evasion, I have explained, in detail, why the logic against religious experience is sound and your attempt to expose any logical flaws in the argument itself by misapplying the ideas of science have failed. This is my last request, and then I'll spend my time discussing my argument with someone who isn't arguing with an imaginary straw-man. Stop evading, read, and respond directly to this post: #561

I don't wish to accuse you of cowardice, but that seems to be very likely the case until you demonstrate otherwise.

[Ares]

Shalamabobbi,

It's time you stop ignoring my explanations. I have long understood what you're trying to accomplish with the transformation and have already explained why your evaluation of my argument is flawed. Despite your continual evasion, I have explained, in detail, why the logic against religious experience is sound and your attempt to expose any logical flaws in the argument itself by misapplying the ideas of science have failed. This is my last request, and then I'll spend my time discussing my argument with someone who isn't arguing with an imaginary straw-man. Stop evading, read, and respond directly to this post: #561

I don't wish to accuse you of cowardice, but that seems to be very likely the case until you demonstrate otherwise.

And on that lovely note: I think this thread has more than run its course.

[Ares]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Dueling philosophers behaving badly

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff