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

[AIT]

From the following podcast it seems to me that William Lane Craig would claim that it does not need to be justified because it is self-authenticating.

[elguanteloko]

For about the 80th time, you have confirmed that you know nothing about Pragmatism

Regarding William James- "The Varieties of Religious Experience" - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(my underlining added)

Sound familiar?

First of all, in those quotes you brought James is NOT talking about ANY theory of truth... at all. He is talking about "religious experiences" and "mysticism".

I agree spiritual or mystic experiences "must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others" for the same reason that I believe no experience whatsoever can be "imparted or transferred" to anyone else. The experience you just had typing can't be imparted nor transferred to anyone else.

You also quote the following: "James finds that religious experience is on the whole useful, even “amongst the most important biological functions of mankind." Please don't forget the next part of the quote: but he concedes that this does not make it true. Now, I don't know specifically what this means in the sense that this is "useful". An idea about the origins of what you felt may be useful to help you cope with the world you see around you but that doesn't mean that you are epistemically justified in believing it.

This quote, in all sincerity, doesn't help your case, brother.

[elguanteloko]

Then what are these?:

Let's take a look at them.

I will underline the critical parts of the quotes. You first quote me first in the following:

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 admit that the very last sentence of this quote is poorly written. I apologize for that. That last sentence should be written as follows:

The apple is what is said to be objective not the experience of it, even though you can only get the experience of it and you can't get the thing that produces the sensations and experiences [other than by inferring it].

Namely, that the thing we infer from our experiences is what is said to be objective and not our experiences of them. When I see the apple I may be hallucinating but what is said to be objective is what we rightly infer is behind my perceptions, that is, what give rise to my experiences.

The next quote says:

You are missing the point, mf. The point is that there is more to "the apple" than our mere experiences (even more than with your use of "objective"; IOW, there is more to the apple than the "subjective" + "objective" experiences of it). We may only get to know what our experiences tell us but that there is more is quite easily deducible.

I really don't see how this is problematic. I put in quote marks when I use "objective" because I'm using there YOUR use of the word. In other words, if a million people can see the same apple at the same time directly, what is objective (doesn't depend on us seeing it) is the apple "in itself", not our experiences of it.

Edited July 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

Of course it exists. When did I say it didn't? Objective experiences are the experiences we all share.

Not that they exists, that is NOT the problem. The problem is you saying they are SIMILAR to the experiences you are having (thereby inferring the QUALITY of the experiences you don't experience, not their existence only).

Yes, of course. I have never been to Antarctica, but I know that others have experienced it- so?

Good, but, again, that's not the problem.

Sure I can. They take pictures of Antarctica and write an article in National Geographic which I read and I have an "objective experience report" which I have no reason to doubt. The pool of human experience is objective experience.

Once again, this is NOT the problem but that you say those experiences other people are having are similar to yours in the first place.

You are not even close to understanding. The objective world is the pool of what we all as humans experience and verify by others repeating the experience- like science. I do not have to replicate every relevant scientific experiment ever done to know that my car will start when I turn the key.

For the billionth time, I am not a solipsist. Trust me, I think you are real and have experiences.

All this in unproblematic to what I'm saying. I'm NOT saying you don't think I exist and have experiences. The problem is you say those experiences are similar to yours, thereby inferring something you are NOT experiencing, namely, the QUALITY of the experiences I'm having. Then, to object to an external world "because you can't - and no one can -perceive it" is an invalid objection since there are things you will never experience but infer the existence of (the existence of experiences that are similar to yours, not that they exist).

But yet that does not say there is something "beyond" what we all as humans have experienced that we can talk about. If we talk about it, someone has experienced it.

Other people's experiences are "beyond" what you will experience. How do you know they are similar to yours in the first place if you don't experience them?

We cannot talk intelligibly about the subjective- it is literally unspeakable- see the William James quote above about mystical experience. It is like describing (dare I say it) ..... the taste of salt. No can do- cannot speak of it.

and I'm perfectly fine with this. I don't know why you keep on repeating this as if this were news or helped your case here. It doesn't.

But you and I can agree the "chips are too salty" because we both have experienced the taste of salt. That makes the subjective experience of salt objective- because we agree on the description of the nature of the experience. They are "too salty" and we agree.

Again, this is fine with me.

mf, I'm afraid you are not even understanding my criticism of your position. I hope this helps clarify it.

Edited July 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[mfbukowski]

First of all, in those quotes you brought James is NOT talking about ANY theory of truth... at all. He is talking about "religious experiences" and "mysticism".

I agree spiritual or mystic experiences "must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others" for the same reason that I believe no experience whatsoever can be "imparted or transferred" to anyone else. The experience you just had typing can't be imparted nor transferred to anyone else.

You also quote the following: "James finds that religious experience is on the whole useful, even “amongst the most important biological functions of mankind." Please don't forget the next part of the quote: but he concedes that this does not make it true. Now, I don't know specifically what this means in the sense that this is "useful". An idea about the origins of what you felt may be useful to help you cope with the world you see around you but that doesn't mean that you are epistemically justified in believing it.

This quote, in all sincerity, doesn't help your case, brother.

It's not that big a deal. It's a word.

mf, I'm afraid you are not even understanding my criticism of your position. I hope this helps clarify it.

"Pragmatists are trying to get rid of the reality/appearance distinction"

I think your objection is just about words as well. You argue as if there is something "behind" the appearance of the apple and then criticize me for arguing as if there is a "similarity" with other's experiences that we cannot know.

Same difference. IF you are serious in understanding pragmatism, our discussion should be over at this point. IF you understand what Rorty says here, we have no more to discuss.

Edited July 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If it's not up to personal preference to determine objective truth, then it's an irrelevant response to my questions which are obviously about whether some claims to objective truth can be preferred over others.

As I have said at least a million times, "Objective truth" is not to be settled by preference, but by evidence.

Subjective truth IS actually "preference" and "what works for me". Religion is subjective, not objective, therefore as a course of action, it is justified by "what works for me".

After all these posts, if you still do not understand this, I don't know what to say.

So when it comes to discerning between the objective truth claims made by different faiths, if we can't tell which truth claims are substantiated, then you therefore don't know that any perceived object of your desire will actually "work for you". So, why do you gamble otherwise?

It is not a gamble at all because the choices are not "objective", but subjective. If you are that paralyzed by making personal decisions about what you like, I have nothing much to say that can help you. Choosing what you like is not a "gamble", you can't make a mistake! You get what you like and what works for you.

Behind this belief is of course the LDS notion that as we learn more, even beyond this life if necessary, you will eventually see what "really works" for all humanity- and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, etc.

But for this life, the belief is, IF we do the best we can and choose what's best for us, and remain guided by the Spirit here, we will eventually "get it right". I will briefly say that I personally believe that there IS a path which is true for all humanity and that is what best for all humanity and I believe that can be defined as a kind of evolutionary utilitarianism which sees survival of the race and culture- life affirmation as the highest moral value. It is in a sense a dynamic conception of "Universal Truth" as a Pragmatic ideal- the Way of Life from the Didache- But that is not in the scope of this thread.

But if this view doesn't work for you, I wish you luck. I think you will eventually get it- you seem committed to the truth, which is more than I can say for many here.

I think I have said enough, even for anyone else reading this thread. There really doesn't seem to be much more to say for me. But as always, I will hang out a while just in case.

[elguanteloko]

It's not that big a deal. It's a word.

"Pragmatists are trying to get rid of the reality/appearance distinction"

I think your objection is just about words as well. You argue as if there is something "behind" the appearance of the apple and then criticize me for arguing as if there is a "similarity" with other's experiences that we cannot know.

Same difference. IF you are serious in understanding pragmatism, our discussion should be over at this point. IF you understand what Rorty says here, we have no more to discuss.

I've seen that video many times before and I agree with everything he says there. Now, watch that video again asking yourself the following: "is he speaking about truth or what we can know about truth?" and you will see he is talking about "measuring up theories or explanations with reality" as being what we need to be get rid of (I completely agree with this), not about the inference or the justification that there is such a thing as reality (even if we can't describe it AT ALL but we can still justify its existence). When I get the image of an apple from my eyesight, I may never get to know what the light from the sun is "bouncing" off on that makes me see the apple, but that doesn't mean it is not justified to think that there is SOMETHING that is getting hit by light and then hits my retina.

Edited July 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[mfbukowski]

I've seen that video many times before and I agree with everything he says there. Now, watch that video again asking yourself the following: "is he speaking about truth or what we can know about truth?" and you will see he is talking about "measuring up theories or explanations with reality" as being what we need to be get rid of (I completely agree with this), not about the inference or the justification that there is such a thing as reality (even if we can't describe it AT ALL but we can still justify its existence). When I get the image of an apple from my eyesight, I may never get to know what the light from the sun is "bouncing" off on that makes me see the apple, but that doesn't mean it is not justified to think that there is SOMETHING that is getting hit by light and then hits my retina.

Something you cannot talk about or even call a "something" . Sure, if it makes you feel good.

I see no need for it. It just confuses the issue.

[elguanteloko]

Something you cannot talk about or even call a "something" . Sure, if it makes you feel good.

I see no need for it. It just confuses the issue.

It explains a lot and fits quite nicely with the nature of our experiences. I don't see how that confuses anything. We can call it a "something" because that is all we know how to refer to things as (and other synonyms but you get the point).

In the words of the great Isaac Asimov:

"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

So, do you understand my criticism of your position now? What do you think about it and do you agree?

[mfbukowski]

It explains a lot and fits quite nicely with the nature of our experiences. I don't see how that confuses anything. We can call it a "something" because that is all we know how to refer to things as (and other synonyms but you get the point).

In the words of the great Isaac Asimov:

"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

So, do you understand my criticism of your position now? What do you think about it and do you agree?

Neither of them are right OR wrong. They are different ways of seeing for different purposes.

If you're building a house, or drawing 99% of maps a flat earth works just fine. But if I was driving home from Mars I would definitely be looking for a circle.

You only need to think of the earth as a sphere for limited use- and even then, I think a geologist would tell you that it kind of bulges in the middle and is flatter around the poles.

But it's pretty rare to need that model.

Edit: the point is, it is not flat, nor a circle nor even really a sphere. It would probably take a book to fully describe all that is know about the shape of the earth to current standards, and then it would be wrong the next time we had a huge earthquake and something shifted.

Any way you look at it, you are "just" using different linguistic constructs as a short description for a specific purpose. "Sphere" is probably as good as any for a single short word, but that still does not capture all the pool of human experience available to describe the shape of the earth.

I mean "blue marble" works about as well too, and is much poetry as anything else.

So for me, it just makes sense to know that it is all "words" so we don't get confused in thinking that words are in some way "real" or "describe" something we cannot even say what it is- without using words

Edited July 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

Religion is subjective, not objective, therefore as a course of action, it is justified by "what works for me".

That religion is only subjective is quite obviously not true. There are claims to objective truth made by nearly every religion, and this is crucially important.

Choosing what you like is not a "gamble", you can't make a mistake! You get what you like and what works for you.

You can't make a mistake? Did you even process my argument? If what "works for you" is to attain something that doesn't exist, then you certainly have made a mistake. It's a gamble because your actions presume certain objective truths -such as the existence of the Celestial Kingdom- without the substantiation you claim can't happen. If we can't reasonably determine that the objects of our desires actually exist and mutually exclusive objects don't, then to behave otherwise is a gamble between competing truth claims. This is the critical problem when what "works for you" is your only standard.

you will eventually see what "really works" for all humanity- and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, etc.

The validity of your statement depends upon the claimed objective truth that everyone will eventually have faith in Christ at the second coming. It will be a literal event, and therefore objective reality.

But for this life, the belief is, IF we do the best we can and choose what's best for us, and remain guided by the Spirit here, we will eventually "get it right".

But if this view doesn't work for you, I wish you luck. I think you will eventually get it- you seem committed to the truth, which is more than I can say for many here.

I appreciate the compliment, but I'm afraid I can't return the thought. You've already admitted that you are uncommitted to objective truth when it comes to religion, but only concerned with what "works for you" regardless. That we will eventually "get it right" again depends on whether there exists a literal, objective God that would create such a plan.

You said, "Objective truth" is not to be settled by preference, but by evidence, and also, "Religion is subjective, not objective." This implies that you have no way to determine which claims of objective truths made by religion are accurate and which are not. If you're left with this apparently unsolvable contradiction, then you have no way to determine which objects of your desire actually "work for you". When the objects of your desires are dependent on objective truths, following one and not the other with no objectively relevant justification is a gamble.

Imagine this:

You and a group of people are presented each with a calculator. You are informed that the calculators may contain any variety of accurate and inaccurate calculations. Each person enters problems and everyone observes that quite often, computing the same problems on different calculators produces different results. You and others attempt repeatedly, but using different calculators always results in contradictions. Now, you decide to choose the calculator that returns x + y = 1 over the calculator that returns x + y = 2. You justify this by simply claiming that your subjective experience of pressing the buttons and observing the result "1" is good enough for you to choose that calculator. 1 just "works for you" when you calculate x + y, and 2 doesn't.

Now, could you please demonstrate that you find this as twisted as I do by answering one last question:

What if unbeknownst to you, both x and y actually equal 1, and the equation you've depended on is actually false?

The correct answer is that in order to recognize this, you need to move beyond the experience of using your chosen calculator. You need to be concerned with matters besides the experience of pressing the numbers and receiving answers, precisely because simply pressing the buttons can't determine whether this or that calculator is objectively accurate. You must appeal to mathematical proof, something external to the calculators, but most importantly, something you can't trust the calculator to tell you all by itself given the contradicting results. Otherwise, you're trusting a calculator for no reason relevant to it's accuracy. Again, you're choosing blindly.

[Montgomery Price]

drawing 99% of maps a flat earth works just fine.

No it won't because a flat map doesn't represent a flat earth. A flat map accounts for the curvature of the Earth, and that's why it works.

[mfbukowski]

No it won't because a flat map doesn't represent a flat earth. A flat map accounts for the curvature of the Earth, and that's why it works.

Uh huh.

Fine. When you draw me a map of how to get to your house, make sure you get the curvature of the earth into that map, ok?

That's while you are doing the spread sheet to decide between vanilla and chocolate. But oops- you left out strawberry cheesecake and rainbow sherbet.

Edited July 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

I admit I haven't read every post in the thread, but after reading the first few I skimmed the rest before posting. So my response is mainly to the question posed in the OP.

I think that the problem the OP points out is how a person can isolate bias or false readings from such as test as Moroni's promise. The missionaries and most members use the BoM to suggest that the proof of the BoM's factuality as well as God's existence (unto knowledge, rather than belief I would add) is found in a pattern declared by God. Yet, don't we have to first believe that the pattern came from God to believe that if it is followed it will lead to knowledge of God?

And isn't that fairly circular in our reasoning?

For example, suppose you were not LDS and were exposed to similar truths and given a different pattern (similar to someone who was raised with beliefs in another religious system, Christian or otherwise). Can you say that the pattern's success is predetermined by an outside source or by internal experience? I would contend that knowledge and belief in the pattern make using the pattern possible - which is a "justification" of one's beliefs but does not constitute knowledge outside of those beliefs. You acted in a certain manner and the desired outcome was achieved - justified! But your assurance that the pattern actually came from God rather than was the product of observation of human behavior (i.e. - a strong belief mixed with an earnest prayer supported by action will yield brain chemical response 'A') is not justified.

That is the critical question the OP presents. Can you really justify the Moroni promise if one fails to isolate it from Mormon-related explanations of what occurs? I don't think a person can.

So knowledge gained and confirmed by following this method is not "known", but rather believed because one still has to rely on faith that the source of the explanation of the results is valid without justification.

I would like to think that we would hold such concepts as "truth" and actual knowledge to a higher standard than this. I personally feel it cheapens both concepts to be so loose in applying them in situations where it is not justified. I also think it can lead to emotional immaturity as well in that a person may stop utilizing their reasoning skills effectively in favor of this "belief yields justification = knowledge" pattern which does not describe the world we current reside in accurately at all.

Perhaps it is a matter of linguistics. But it is one of linguistic precision to better qualify one's definition of knowledge.

I take no exception to people saying they believe things based on these methodologies. But it's unfortunately when someone feels that all knowledge-gaining is equal. Even more unfortunate when someone claims that the unjustified method is the more reliable method because it comes from a higher authority when the connection to this authority isn't justified or proven.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Honorentheos

[mfbukowski]

That religion is only subjective is quite obviously not true. There are claims to objective truth made by nearly every religion, and this is crucially important.

You can't make a mistake? Did you even process my argument? If what "works for you" is to attain something that doesn't exist, then you certainly have made a mistake. It's a gamble because your actions presume certain objective truths -such as the existence of the Celestial Kingdom- without the substantiation you claim can't happen. If we can't reasonably determine that the objects of our desires actually exist and mutually exclusive objects don't, then to behave otherwise is a gamble between competing truth claims. This is the critical problem when what "works for you" is your only standard.

The validity of your statement depends upon the claimed objective truth that everyone will eventually have faith in Christ at the second coming. It will be a literal event, and therefore objective reality.

I appreciate the compliment, but I'm afraid I can't return the thought. You've already admitted that you are uncommitted to objective truth when it comes to religion, but only concerned with what "works for you" regardless. That we will eventually "get it right" again depends on whether there exists a literal, objective God that would create such a plan.

You said, "Objective truth" is not to be settled by preference, but by evidence, and also, "Religion is subjective, not objective." This implies that you have no way to determine which claims of objective truths made by religion are accurate and which are not. If you're left with this apparently unsolvable contradiction, then you have no way to determine which objects of your desire actually "work for you". When the objects of your desires are dependent on objective truths, following one and not the other with no objectively relevant justification is a gamble.

Imagine this:

You and a group of people are presented each with a calculator. You are informed that the calculators may contain any variety of accurate and inaccurate calculations. Each person enters problems and everyone observes that quite often, computing the same problems on different calculators produces different results. You and others attempt repeatedly, but using different calculators always results in contradictions. Now, you decide to choose the calculator that returns x + y = 1 over the calculator that returns x + y = 2. You justify this by simply claiming that your subjective experience of pressing the buttons and observing the result "1" is good enough for you to choose that calculator. 1 just "works for you" when you calculate x + y, and 2 doesn't.

Now, could you please demonstrate that you find this as twisted as I do by answering one last question:

What if unbeknownst to you, both x and y actually equal 1, and the equation you've depended on is actually false?

The correct answer is that in order to recognize this, you need to move beyond the experience of using your chosen calculator. You need to be concerned with matters besides the experience of pressing the numbers and receiving answers, precisely because simply pressing the buttons can't determine whether this or that calculator is objectively accurate. You must appeal to mathematical proof, something external to the calculators, but most importantly, something you can't trust the calculator to tell you all by itself given the contradicting results. Otherwise, you're trusting a calculator for no reason relevant to it's accuracy. Again, you're choosing blindly.

Have a nice day. You did not understand one word. Sorry I couldn't say it better.

If I'm wrong, I did the best I could and I can't do better than that.

Edited July 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

Fine. When you draw me a map of how to get to your house, make sure you get the curvature of the earth into that map, ok?

A flat map on such a small scale is still recognizably incorrect. We are in position to correct the error and do so after the map is no longer needed, because it's fulfilled its limited use. The map is still inaccurate and we can know this through experimentation. As long as we recognize that the map is objectively in error with experimentation, you have no objectively relevant reason to prefer your demonstrably inaccurate model over the more accurate model.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

Have a nice day. You did not understand one word. Sorry I couldn't say it better.

If I'm wrong, I did the best I could and I can't do better than that.

You're giving up? You haven't even tried to respond to my argument.

How can something "work for you" if that something doesn't exist?

You, at the very least, should explain why this question doesn't work or doesn't apply... I've presented it several times in several different ways and you haven't addressed it once.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[mfbukowski]

How can something "work for you" if that something doesn't exist?

Every word in every post addressed it.

We are not talking about things which "exist", we are talking about models and theories which work or do not work.

It's all words, Montgomery. That's all we have.

We can't know about "things" ; all we know is how we experience what you call "things" and how we talk about them. I don't think you can make the paradigm shift to even discuss this possibility.

Edited July 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

Every word in every post addressed it.

We are not talking about things which "exist", we are talking about models and theories which work or do not work.

And I'm pointing out that certain models don't work if their end results or variables don't actually exist. Those end results and variables being "things". Therefore, we are talking about "things".

Attempting to gain Celestial Glory doesn't work if there's no such thing. You've completely ignored this objection. You instead insist repeatedly that your method "just works" apparently under all circumstances when I've clearly demonstrated that this is not true. Your method depends on certain things being objectively true and incompatible propositions to be false. Given this contradiction, choosing without resolving the contradiction (which would require the talk of "things" you say can't happen) is simply an irrational and blind gamble.

I can grant that we can't talk about "things", but so what? This doesn't change my argument because my argument is the very same idea. That we can't solve the problem of contradicting claims to these certain objective truths is the argument. Every response you've given only establishes my premise, and consistently ignores the objection that follows from that premise.

None of the words you've offered has addressed why this is wrong.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

mfbukowski, let me make this as clear as possible:

I am arguing that you require the evaluation of "things", not that I am engaging in the evaluation of those "things".

So, please stop trying to explain why we can't talk about "things" and address why accepting that we can't talk about "things" causes a serious problem for your methods of action that depend on those "things".

Edited July 2, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[mfbukowski]

There is no objective evidence for celestial glory or that it exists as a thing.

The belief that there is celestial glory is verified subjectively, "in one's heart". I believe there does in fact exist a state called "celestial glory" but it cannot be proven to "exist" objectively.

The fact that it cannot be proven objectively is irrelevant to my belief in it.

You are just not getting the point- the world is not made up of things- it is made up of ideas and experiences of what we call in language "things". I keep trying different formulations of that, but you never understand.

Maybe someone else can explain what I mean- perhaps E now understands where I am coming from. It might make a good exercise for him to try to represent my position accurately.

E- don't bother if you don't feel like it. Perhaps you don't get it either I don't know. I know that if you actually read what I quoted Montgomery, you might get a glimmer.

Let me try this: you cannot postulate the existence of "things" in the world because all anybody knows about these alleged "things" is what is experienced and what is seen.

That's it.

I have a life to lead, hard as that is to believe.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski, let me make this as clear as possible:

I am arguing that you require the evaluation of "things", not that I am engaging in the evaluation of those "things".

So, please stop trying to explain why we can't talk about "things" and address why accepting that we can't talk about "things" causes a serious problem for your methods of action that depend on those "things".

Nothing I have said depends on the existence of "things" as you have used the word.

Let me try a Platonic tack with you- note that I do not actually believe the words I am about to say, but maybe they will communicate anyway. I am searching for a way to talk to people like Montgomery so I want to see if this works.

I'll put it in a different color- my lie that hopefully will tell the truth

We live in a world of illusion- you cannot know anything about what is really "out there" because all you see is illusions- red is not a color- it is light reflected of a certain wavelength. So all you see is illusion your mind has made and we talk about.

Since all we can know is illusions, there is no point in talking about what we think is "real"- we can only talk about illusions and models and experiences that someone has had.

Science isn't real- it is a codification of illusions in a precise way. So you turn on an instrument which shows you what wavelengths are reaching your eye- and all you have now is an instrument's interpretation of the illusion- but still an illusion! It isn't what is "real" because you can't know what is real- only what is illusion!

So if all you know is illusion, you just pick a model- and science does this too- pick a model which works for the purpose intended and forget about what is "real"- we will all just agree that it is illusions, but we will CALL it all "real" to keep talking about it simple.

But we need to know that all we really have is ideas about what is real- not what is real at all.

So if nothing we can know is real, then stuff in our head is just as real as anything else, right? But the difference is that no one else can know what is in my head- but the illusions we all talk about and agree are illusions- like what we call in English the "color red" we will call "objective" because we can all agree that that is the right name for the color- we call it objective but just because we all agree to call it that- but it's really not red- that is an illusion- its really light waves reflecting off stuff, but we just call it red to make it easy.

I hope this works, but it will probably just confuse things and now we will argue about problems with the analogy. But it was worth a try.

Not sure why I like this kid. He reminds me of me about 40 years ago I guess.

[Montgomery Price]

There is no objective evidence for celestial glory or that it exists as a thing.

The belief that there is celestial glory is verified subjectively, "in one's heart". I believe there does in fact exist a state called "celestial glory" but it cannot be proven to "exist" objectively.

The fact that it cannot be proven objectively is irrelevant to my belief in it.

You are just not getting the point- the world is not made up of things- it is made up of ideas and experiences of what we call in language "things". I keep trying different formulations of that, but you never understand.

Maybe someone else can explain what I mean- perhaps E now understands where I am coming from. It might make a good exercise for him to try to represent my position accurately.

E- don't bother if you don't feel like it. Perhaps you don't get it either I don't know. I know that if you actually read what I quoted Montgomery, you might get a glimmer.

All you've established is that, according to you, there is no way to solve the objection I've raised. You've obviously misunderstood my argument because your response has repeatedly establish my premise. It's the entire point.

The premise is that we have no method to discern whether certain objective truths exist and others don't. You've been rambling on about this even after I've granted it... It in now way solves the problem. Again:

The fact that your beliefs depend on there being certain objective truths makes objective truths relevant. Here is why:

In what sense does attempting to gain Celestial Glory "work for you" if there exists no such thing?

Now, will you please answer the question. You're becoming remarkably evasive.

This question demonstrates that simple standard of what "works for you" is insufficient to discern what, in actuality, "works for you". To respond that there is no proper way to talk about objective truth only supports the premise that there is an unsolvable contradiction between claims to objective truth. Do you see why this is so critical when your beliefs about what "works for you" depend on whether these objective truths can be preferred over others as accurately representing reality?

Edited July 3, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

Nothing I have said depends on the existence of "things" as you have used the word.

Let me try a Platonic tack with you- note that I do not actually believe the words I am about to say, but maybe they will communicate anyway. I am searching for a way to talk to people like Montgomery so I want to see if this works.

I'll put it in a different color- my lie that hopefully will tell the truth

We live in a world of illusion- you cannot know anything about what is really "out there" because all you see is illusions- red is not a color- it is light reflected of a certain wavelength. So all you see is illusion your mind has made and we talk about.

Since all we can know is illusions, there is no point in talking about what we think is "real"- we can only talk about illusions and models and experiences that someone has had.

Science isn't real- it is a codification of illusions in a precise way. So you turn on an instrument which shows you what wavelengths are reaching your eye- and all you have now is an instrument's interpretation of the illusion- but still an illusion! It isn't what is "real" because you can't know what is real- only what is illusion!

So if all you know is illusion, you just pick a model- and science does this too- pick a model which works for the purpose intended and forget about what is "real"- we will all just agree that it is illusions, but we will CALL it all "real" to keep talking about it simple.

But we need to know that all we really have is ideas about what is real- not what is real at all.

So if nothing we can know is real, then stuff in our head is just as real as anything else, right? But the difference is that no one else can know what is in my head- but the illusions we all talk about and agree are illusions- like what we call in English the "color red" we will call "objective" because we can all agree that that is the right name for the color- we call it objective but just because we all agree to call it that- but it's really not red- that is an illusion- its really light waves reflecting off stuff, but we just call it red to make it easy.

I hope this works, but it will probably just confuse things and now we will argue about problems with the analogy. But it was worth a try.

Not sure why I like this kid. He reminds me of me about 40 years ago I guess.

Again, this does nothing but establish my premise.

And you are wrong that your beliefs depend on whether something actually exists. As demonstrated by the question you have evaded once again:

In what sense does attempting to gain Celestial Glory "work for you" if there exists no such thing?

This question establishes that objective truths or "things" are obviously and critically relevant, even if we can't determine whether we can talk about or prove "things" as you claim. I challenge you to stop supporting my premise and to explain what is exactly wrong with this question. A direct response to the structure of my question would be more clear and appreciated.

Oh, and by the way... I'm out of the hospital feeling better in case you were worried at all.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[shalamabobbi]

A story of Star Trek's Lieutenant Commander Data's offspring..

I visited a class of junior high kids today. They were all diligently involved looking for ways to objectively prove the existence of love.

"Why?", I asked.

"So that we can experience it", they replied.

"Well it works for me", I replied.

"Well, in what sense does falling in love work for you if there is no such thing?", they were stumped.

http://text.farmsresearch.com/publications/review/?vol=4&num=1&id=81

Edited July 3, 2011 by shalamabobbi