A Scientific Test for God's Existence

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  The demand that experiments be repeatable under laboratory conditions also does not obtain.  That does not mean that it is not authentic, but only affirms the fact that the results are very personal and non-transferrable, every individual having to reproduce them for himself.  This applies as much to Alma 32, as it does to Moroni 10:4-5.  That may be "worthless" as science (per Dunning), but religion is not science.

I am not demanding that all experiments under laboratory conditions, I am simply saying that Alma 32 is not science. Personal experiences are not scientific experiments. 

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

  The scientific method itself is non-falsifiable.

I am in a hurry, so I will be brief. I can't prove the world is real, I can't prove we are not living in a computer simulation, but we can observe that the scientific method works. 

Scientific studies are useful, medicine is useful, science works. 

Edited May 16, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not demanding that all experiments under laboratory conditions, I am simply saying that Alma 32 is not science. Personal experiences are not scientific experiments. 

 

I am in a hurry, so I will be brief. I can't prove the world is real, I can't prove we are not living in a computer simulation, but we can observe that the scientific method works. 

Scientific studies are useful, medicine is useful, science works. 

And so does morality which also has no objective basis and is non-falsifiable.  Religious belief is on the same level as morality.  It works to give me peace and a meaning for my life- that spiritual need that atheists also affirm for themselves.

 

[mfbukowski]

Of course scripture is not science

Do you finally understand that that means that it should not be judged by scientific tests then???

It is in a different "sphere", with morality and scientific assumptions themselves.  Read the above which apparently, as usual, you have not.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Prophesy can always be reinterpreted after the fact. 

But in that scenario no one will be a believer and have a reason to. Problem solved.

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

3 problems. 

1. That is not a testable prediction we can make today.

2. If everyone stops believing in the LDS church, it will not be because of a scientific prediction. 

3. If the church collapses to 500 members (like the Strang church), their members will do some good  mental gymnastics to explain the collapse. 

 

1. True, but many scientific tests take time.

2. Definitely.

3. Part of me wouldn't be surprised if the Church did shrink that small at some point. I hope not but it is possible.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not demanding that all experiments under laboratory conditions, I am simply saying that Alma 32 is not science. Personal experiences are not scientific experiments. 

What I said, or didn't you read it?

........................................ I can't prove the world is real, I can't prove we are not living in a computer simulation, but we can observe that the scientific method works. 

Scientific studies are useful, medicine is useful, science works. 

That is pragmatism, not science.  We still have to contend with David Hume's well-defined limitations on human perception.

If we are in a simulation, then the proposition that science works is only an illusion.

“Do We Live in a Computer Simulation Run by Our Descendants? Researchers Say Idea Can Be Tested,” ScienceDaily, Dec 10, 2012, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210132752.htm . 

“Scientists Confirm That Reality is an Illusion - Our 3D Universe Is A Hologram,” May 4, 2012, online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngieHWZXcM .

 Nick Bostrom, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” Philosophical Quarterly, 53/211 (2003):243-255.

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

  Religious belief is on the same level as morality.  

I agree with that, but we don´t know (or at least I don't know) if morality is objective. Perhaps we create our own morality? 

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

.That is pragmatism, not science. We still have to contend with David Hume's well-defined limitations on human perception.

 Yes, we have limitations, but we need to try our best.

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If we are in a simulation, then the proposition that science works is only an illusion.

True, but it still works. Even if our world is just a dream a rock will still fall when we drop it, that is called observation and testable predictions. 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Support by personal testimonials is the most common indicator of bad information. Personal experiences are a terrible way to learn anything: we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning

The above is self contradictory.

It is not because he is talking about products. He is saying that a real researcher doesn't try a product himself,  he tells other people to try it. 

 

Again, I am not saying religious experiences are not real, but they are not science

Edited May 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It is not because he is talking about products. He is saying that a real researcher doesn't try a product himself,  he tells other people to try it. 

 

Again, I am not saying religious experiences are not real, but they are not science

Of course they are not science. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

.............................................................

 Yes, we have limitations, but we need to try our best.

True, but it still works. Even if our world is just a dream a rock will still fall when we drop it, that is called observation and testable predictions. 

Oh, I believe in natural law, but that does not provide verification that natural law is objective (that my beliefs are true).  All the observation and testing we can bring to bear will not verify an illusion -- that it is not illusory, but real.  Moreover, an illusion can be subject to exceptions in which dreams come true and in which miracles happen, if even there is no objective reality to miracles.  Indeed, all of human and animal life on Earth could be nothing more than a test by simulation.  That way no one actually gets injured in the process of the test, thus making all of our complaints groundless.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/16/2016 at 8:13 AM, James Tunney said:

The problem with Alma 32 is that it is a sales method that works on pretty much everything.  Assume the conclusion you want (faith).  Then try out the religion or product.  Have an emotional experience.  Then the handlers (missionaries or advertising execs) guide or manipulate you to think that the emotional response is related to what you were supposedly "testing."  And voila, a conversion!  Bonneville calls this HeartSell.

Hi James.  Welcome to this board, and thanks for your thought-provoking comment here.

Alma 32 makes long-term demands on the experimenter, which one does not find in Moroni 10:4-5 (which depends completely upon faith and the Holy Spirit).  Alma 32 is pragmatic, progressive, and incremental, and does not provide a conclusion of faith, but of knowledge.  It is the experimental method central to science par excellence, but with only personal results.  This is not a quick, emotional heartsell, but a practical demonstration to one's self.  Indeed, it is not the method used by the LDS missionary in the field.  That is rather Moroni 10:4-5 and James 1:5, which was the method used by Joseph Smith Jr in his own conversion.

[TheSkepticChristian]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hi James.  Welcome to this board, and thanks for your thought-provoking comment here.

Alma 32 makes long-term demands on the experimenter, which one does not find in Moroni 10:4-5 (which depends completely upon faith and the Holy Spirit).  Alma 32 is pragmatic, progressive, and incremental, and does not provide a conclusion of faith, but of knowledge.  It is the experimental method central to science par excellence, but with only personal results.  This is not a quick, emotional heartsell, but a practical demonstration to one's self.  Indeed, it is not the method used by the LDS missionary in the field.  That is rather Moroni 10:4-5 and James 1:5, which was the method used by Joseph Smith Jr in his own conversion.

Again, Alma 32 might be real,  but it can't be label as a scientific experiment. Like Brian said, " Support by personal testimonials is the most common indicator of bad information. Personal experiences are a terrible way to learn anything: we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning

 

In others words, researchers don't try something for themselves, they ask others to do it. 

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Again, Alma 32 might be real,  but it can't be label as a scientific experiment. Like Brian said, " Support by personal testimonials is the most common indicator of bad information. Personal experiences are a terrible way to learn anything: we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning

In others words, researchers don't try something for themselves, they ask others to do it. 

Of course, that is false.  Scientists often run their own experiments, although the scientific method (dogma) demands replication by others under laboratory conditions.  There are set rituals and procedures for doing all this, and the documentation is even ritualistic, but it does have practical value -- which is why it is used.  That Alma 32 is in a somewhat different realm (religious belief and practice) only tells us that it is not science, not that it is not a valid test for the existence of God.  Like science it has practical value, which is the whole point of Alma 32.

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Again, Alma 32 might be real,  but it can't be label as a scientific experiment. Like Brian said, " Support by personal testimonials is the most common indicator of bad information. Personal experiences are a terrible way to learn anything: we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning

 

In others words, researchers don't try something for themselves, they ask others to do it. 

 

Apparently you still don't see the contradictions in that statement you quoted even after Robert pointed them out for you.

And your concluding statement in your post wasn't worth repeating either. 

Let me know when you're ready for me to tell you what you should be thinking now. 

[jkwilliams]

On 5/15/2016 at 3:04 PM, The Nehor said:

Even if an angel cake down in full view of witnesses who submitted to tests to prove they were real and had powers it would fail on rigor unless you could call down an angel at will.

I can call an angel cake down at will. I just go to the bakery.

[Robert F. Smith]

By the way, I was just reading a nice master's thesis, which  made the point that the Gospel of Luke presents three methods for knowing that the Lord has actually risen:
1.  Through the witness of the Holy Spirit (“did not our heart burn within us when he spoke to us on the road,” Lk 24:32),
2.  The word of the Scriptures (“when he opened the Scriptures to us?” Lk 24:32),
3.  The Eucharistic/Sacramental meal (“he had made himself known to them in the breaking of the bread,” Lk 32:35).

Indeed, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts of the Apostles (both by the same author) have as their central theme that “the Spirit is the primary means of God’s interacting with the Church, especially to its ordinary members.”  Quoting L. Johnson, Gospel of Luke (1991), 17-18.

The scientific method is only one among several epistemologies, and not necessarily the best one for all purposes.

[James Tunney]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hi James.  Welcome to this board, and thanks for your thought-provoking comment here.

Alma 32 makes long-term demands on the experimenter, which one does not find in Moroni 10:4-5 (which depends completely upon faith and the Holy Spirit).  Alma 32 is pragmatic, progressive, and incremental, and does not provide a conclusion of faith, but of knowledge.  It is the experimental method central to science par excellence, but with only personal results.  This is not a quick, emotional heartsell, but a practical demonstration to one's self.  Indeed, it is not the method used by the LDS missionary in the field.  That is rather Moroni 10:4-5 and James 1:5, which was the method used by Joseph Smith Jr in his own conversion.

I used it in the mission field.  It was useful to get someone to stop smoking, or to try out some principle, etc.  Anyway, I still believe that it is a sales pitch of sorts that works for almost anything.  The key is the concept of faith.  One has to believe first or assume the conclusion with Alma 32 to start off.  Get them to start saying yes right away by getting them to assume that what you're selling is right for them.  This is what faith is - a prepackaged belief in a desired conclusion.  The conclusion could be that Mormonism, Islam, Judaism or Evangelicalism is the truth or that a certain product is right for you.  Then you try out the seed or religious philosophy or product.  The sale is made easier by assuming the conclusion right off the bat.  You stay while they try it out or return after a short time making more conclusory statements about how good it was to try it out.  Wasn't it great to do X?  Wasn't it great to relax in your new car while you test-drove it? That shows that it's true, so let's make a commitment.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I used it in the mission field.  It was useful to get someone to stop smoking, or to try out some principle, etc.  Anyway, I still believe that it is a sales pitch of sorts that works for almost anything.  The key is the concept of faith.  One has to believe first or assume the conclusion with Alma 32 to start off.  Get them to start saying yes right away by getting them to assume that what you're selling is right for them.  This is what faith is - a prepackaged belief in a desired conclusion.  The conclusion could be that Mormonism, Islam, Judaism or Evangelicalism is the truth or that a certain product is right for you.  Then you try out the seed or religious philosophy or product.  The sale is made easier by assuming the conclusion right off the bat.  You stay while they try it out or return after a short time making more conclusory statements about how good it was to try it out.  Wasn't it great to do X?  Wasn't it great to relax in your new car while you test-drove it? That shows that it's true, so let's make a commitment.

I hope that you will let quote you on that:  "faith is - a prepackaged belief in a desired conclusion."

You have wonderful descriptive powers, James, and I think that we have here the basis for a Hollywood script:  "Jerry Maguire meets Death of a Salesman"  Just imagine an older but wiser Jerry Maguire has now converted to Mormonism and is proselyting in his usual barker style (the dialogue is key).  Think an older Tom Cruise in the lead role.

While you are working on that, however, would you say that use of Alma 32 was quite common in the Mission Field as you knew it?  When was that?  Or did you do that on your own initiative?

[TheSkepticChristian]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, that is false.  Scientists often run their own experiments

True, but for something they can measure in the lab! However, when researchers study a product or scheme (something they can't measure) they tell other people to do it so they can observe how volunteers are affected. Scientists make the statistics based on their observations, that is how they do the experiment.  

They can't measure the Book of Mormon in the lab, so a real  researcher would ask a lot of people (with different backgrounds) to try Alma 32. 

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

Apparently you still don't see the contradictions in that statement you quoted even after Robert pointed them out for you

Apparently you guys don't understand what I am saying. 

Edited May 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[James Tunney]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I hope that you will let quote you on that:  "faith is - a prepackaged belief in a desired conclusion."

You have wonderful descriptive powers, James, and I think that we have here the basis for a Hollywood script:  "Jerry Maguire meets Death of a Salesman"  Just imagine an older but wiser Jerry Maguire has now converted to Mormonism and is proselyting in his usual barker style (the dialogue is key).  Think an older Tom Cruise in the lead role.

While you are working on that, however, would you say that use of Alma 32 was quite common in the Mission Field as you knew it?  When was that?  Or did you do that on your own initiative?

I think Alma 32 was used as an example of the commitment pattern if I recall correctly. I think it was referred to often by the G.A.s in that context when I was in the MTC and in the field. It makes sense too as planting the seed of faith seems to be a great sales metaphor. Anyway, my point is that it can be used in almost any persuasive endeavor and any religious conversion. Prepare the poor, invite to plant the seed, and follow up by asking if the seed turns into something delicious.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

True, but for something they can measure in the lab! However, when researchers study a product or scheme (something they can't measure) they tell other people to do it so they can observe how volunteers are affected. Scientists make the statistics based on their observations, that is how they do the experiment.  

They can't measure the Book of Mormon in the lab, so a real  researcher would ask a lot of people (with different backgrounds) to try Alma 32. 

Apparently you guys don't understand what I am saying. 

Actually the Book of Mormon, just like the Bible and other ancient literature, can be subjected to scientific measures of its authenticity.  That has nothing to do with Alma 32, but does have everything to do with the ways in which any literature can be closely and objectively examined for historical authenticity.  See my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf ; and “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010):125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807 ; and “New Information About Mulek, Son of the King,” FARMS Update, February1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 142-144. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 .

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I think Alma 32 was used as an example of the commitment pattern if I recall correctly. I think it was referred to often by the G.A.s in that context when I was in the MTC and in the field. It makes sense too as planting the seed of faith seems to be a great sales metaphor. Anyway, my point is that it can be used in almost any persuasive endeavor and any religious conversion. Prepare the poor, invite to plant the seed, and follow up by asking if the seed turns into something delicious.

A very wise choice of method.  I thought that Alma 32 was widely ignored.  Good to see that I was wrong.  To my way of thinking, it is far superior in quality to Moroni 10:4-5.  Indeed, I should think that it has more longevity.  Is that your opinion also?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Apparently you guys don't understand what I am saying. 

Oh we understand it- you have said it a hundred times.  You are the one who needs to listen to the idea that his is not about objective evidence.

This is about subjective feelings of what is right, and everyone does not need to agree as in science.  It is something like a preference for chocolate over vanilla with some very good reasons why chocolate really IS better, but the reasons themselves are also subjective.  Chocolate makes you think better and makes your vision better. Chocolate helps you decide your life and gives you a reason to get out of bed in the morning to serve the cause of chocolate and spread the message.  Others like vanilla, but they don't really understand the benefits of chocolate and the wonderous peace it gives you.  All the other flavors are nice and give one some measure of what is found in chocolate, but the benefits in the long run are not even close.

Is there scientific evidence for preferring chocolate when its only benefits are totally subjective?  No, but the chocolate partisans are totally convinced there is nothing better and encourage you to really get into chocolate by tasting what it can do for you in your life.  But you must be consistent and follow the chocolate rules to get full benefit.

Those who believe in chocolate believe that the benefits are eternal and will eventually help you to grow as a human being into being perfect as an Ideal Human perhaps even in the after life.

You have the advantage of being raised chocolate but keep looking for scientific proof that chocolate is better, but there is nor can there be such evidence.  You just have to live it to know.  But what is bothering you really I think is commitment.  No one can help you with that.

[TheSkepticChristian]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the Book of Mormon, just like the Bible and other ancient literature, can be subjected to scientific measures of its authenticity.  

I disagree. nothing in the Bible and Book of Mormon is falsifiable. For example, horses may not be horses. Millions may be an exaggeration. Nothing is known about the history of  pre-classic mesoamerica.

Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon can never be proven wrong, just ask any apologist. 

Apologists are good in finding creative explanations, 

 

Edited May 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I disagree. nothing in the Bible and Book of Mormon is falsifiable. For example, horses may not be horses. Millions may be an exaggeration. Nothing is known about the history of  pre-classic mesoamerica.

Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon can never be proven wrong, just ask any apologist. 

Apologists are good in finding creative explanations, 

 

By "falsifiable" aren't you talking about getting some kind of evidence that something is not true???

If so then all you would need to show that something is falsifiable is some evidence of what is true and then compare that with what you THINK MAY BE false, while holding onto the possibility that what you think may be false is actually true, too.

In Alma 32 that is what Alma was referring to as having a desire to believe.  To hope a little.  To think that maybe,  just maybe, what you are thinking about may be true.  When you really don't know and are not sure either way. To not jump to the conclusion that just because you think something may be false that it is false and not worth your time to experiment or investigate the issue.

The key is in knowing who you should believe and it would be a mistake to just assume that someone who is called a "scientist" is always right about whatever he thinks is right even if he believes he has thoroughly researched the issue and found all of the evidence he needs to prove the truth of the issue to himself. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I disagree. nothing in the Bible and Book of Mormon is falsifiable. For example, horses may not be horses. Millions may be an exaggeration. Nothing is known about the history of  pre-classic mesoamerica.

Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon can never be proven wrong, just ask any apologist. 

Apologists are good in finding creative explanations, 

I wasn't speaking of apologetics, but merely of science.  I thought you were discussing science here.  Am I wrong?  Archeologists and historians regularly examine ancient literature and artifacts for historical authenticity.  Perhaps you don't know what that entails, or how significant science is in the  examination of historical claims.  Are you changing the goals posts?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith