Jracforr Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Do not be fooled by the infinite variety of options made available by engineering skill. All those "choices" are controlled by natural law. Indeed, since humans and everything else are made up of atomic particles, and since the nature of those particles is mechanical and predictable (not subject to chance), all actions and reactions are predetermined by natural law. No matter how complex those interactions, they all follow natural law, and are completely deterministic in nature. Humans tell themselves that they are making choices, when in fact the choices have already been made for them by nature, and they are merely engaged in predictable rationalization about it -- they construct a story to account for that which has already taken place. Einstein admitted that when he said that God does not play with dice. Your task in discussing this is to explain how free will is possible in a fully deterministic system. If all actions and reactions are predetermined, you could say my response to your comment was not an exercise of “ MY FREE WILL”, but rather some predetermined impulse made me react, we all know that is nonsense, because both free will and natural laws govern our lives, it is not one or the other, it is both. I am a firm believer that natural laws “predetermined” the Physical and Human Geography of this Planet, as my comments on previous topics indicated. However I am equally convinced that our free will can make life on this Planet better or worse, depending on what we choose to do or not do. Our lives and that of the ethnic group to which we belong, have a specific timeline in which to act, and a specific location in which to prosper or fail, and it is our ignorance of these natural laws that result in the chaos we currently live in. Highlighting the importance of the binding effects of natural laws in necessary , but it must be accompanied by the knowledge, that free will exists, within the constraints imposed by natural laws
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Jracforr said: If all actions and reactions are predetermined, you could say my response to your comment was not an exercise of “ MY FREE WILL”, but rather some predetermined impulse made me react, we all know that is nonsense, because both free will and natural laws govern our lives, it is not one or the other, it is both. I am a firm believer that natural laws “predetermined” the Physical and Human Geography of this Planet, as my comments on previous topics indicated. However I am equally convinced that our free will can make life on this Planet better or worse, depending on what we choose to do or not do. Our lives and that of the ethnic group to which we belong, have a specific timeline in which to act, and a specific location in which to prosper or fail, and it is our ignorance of these natural laws that result in the chaos we currently live in. Highlighting the importance of the binding effects of natural laws in necessary , but it must be accompanied by the knowledge, that free will exists, within the constraints imposed by natural laws Determinism says that your reply, and my reply are both predetermined. That free will was not involved in any way. Your or my personal story about free will is merely an afterthought, predetermined by circumstances. There is in fact no chaos, because natural law always applies. Chaos is merely a story we tell to each other as humans. Thus far, you have completely failed to explain how free will can obtain within a fully deterministic system. How is it possible for us to be "free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for" ourselves "and not to be acted upon"? (2 Nephi 2:26) You keep going down the same blind alley that the normative Judeo-Christians always go, and which leads to the death of God. There is a reason why Calvinist Presbyterians accept the full sovereignty of God and argue against free will. What is the key to the difference in LDS theology?
Kevin Christensen Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 4 hours ago, MosiahFree said: What? Fundamentalism, like Empiricism, has an history. For Fundamentalism, see the wikipedia essay on the publication of "90 essays between 1911 and 1915". "According to its foreword, the publication was designed to be "a new statement of the fundamentals of Christianity."[1] However, its contents reflect a concern with certain theological innovations related to liberal Christianity, especially biblical higher criticism. It is widely considered to be the foundation of modern Christian fundamentalism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals Notice that one of the Fundamental essays attacks Mormonism. Empiricism/Positivism share several basic assumptions to processing information, and Fundamentalism does as well. Basically, the controlling assumption is, if you simply apply pure reason and logic to the evidence (whether data or scripture), everyone will be forced to the same conclusions. That kind of thinking is post Enlightenment Rationalism. It peaks in Positivism and Empiricism in the early 20th century. For the Fundamentalists, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." For the Empiricists, "They defended the objectivity of science through three claims. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. (2) Theories can then be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (3) The choice between rival theories is thus rational, objective, and in accordance with specifiable criteria." Joseph Smith, on the other hand, begins by noting that "the different teachers of religion understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." He realized, as N. R. Hanson demonstrated in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, that "All data is theory-laden." And of course, in Godel, Escher and Bach, Hofstatder observes that "The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions," (p 18), and that "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved." (p 19). Does that help? Best, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
Jracforr Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 47 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Determinism says that your reply, and my reply are both predetermined. That free will was not involved in any way. Your or my personal story about free will is merely an afterthought, predetermined by circumstances. There is in fact no chaos, because natural law always applies. Chaos is merely a story we tell to each other as humans. Thus far, you have completely failed to explain how free will can obtain within a fully deterministic system. How is it possible for us to be "free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for" ourselves "and not to be acted upon"? (2 Nephi 2:26) You keep going down the same blind alley that the normative Judeo-Christians always go, and which leads to the death of God. There is a reason why Calvinist Presbyterians accept the full sovereignty of God and argue against free will. What is the key to the difference in LDS theology? “ Determinism” is somebody’s Circumstantial Evidence of reality, you and I have Empirical Evidence, that Natural Laws predetermined events, but they do not prevent the exercise of free will. Dumb animals are predestined to one fate or another, but Humanity can exercise choices and receive consequences, hence while a Presbyterian maybe “ Predisposed “ to salvation, he is not “ Predestined “ because he is not a dumb animal, therefore he can make choices good or bad. The LDS Church and the entire ministry of Christ would be a mirage, if humanity could not act independently to determine it’s fate. Some people, based upon the errors of their forefathers have almost exclusively bad choices /option before them, but they can still choose the right up to a certain point . Drug addiction can take an individual beyond the point of no return, as do many other errors in life, but at some point, free will could have changed their destiny.
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) This is not all that complicated. As usual it is about semantics and then we reify the words and presume that they are true statements about the nature of the world- when all they are are words which are confusing. "Empirical" means observable. For those who have had a spiritual experience, they are clearly empirical. Just calling them an "experience" MEANS that someone experienced it, perceived it, noticed it etc. Clearly spiritual experiences are "empirical" - someone feels or perceives something. "Objective" means that more than one person has made the "same" observation. If one puts a pot of water on the stove and puts into it a correctly calibrated thermometer, eventually the water will start to bubble. At that point, at sea level, the thermometer will read 212 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale. Notice that all those conditions are part of the observation. IF the thermometer is not calibrated properly, the experiment will not work. If any foreign material is in the water, the experiment will not produce the expected results. If the experiment is not done at sea level, the expected results will also not be produced. Following this "recipe" anyone anywhere can perform the experiment and experience the same results under the specified conditions. That is what makes the observation "objective"- many people can perform it and get the same results. It could be "peer reviewed" by anyone capable of boiling water who owns a thermometer and performs the experiment at sea level Spiritual experiences are "empirical" but not "objective" . They are empirical because someone feels something that they understand to be "real". It is something perceived- a change in mental state or attitude or perhaps a physical feeling in their bodies. They are NOT objective because others cannot feel exactly what the person is feeling. Another person cannot feel the same thing the subject does- or at least there is no way to SHOW others that what they might be perceiving is the "same" Observations which are both empirical and objective are useful in science. Observations which are empirical and not objective are the back bone of religion Quote em·pir·i·cal /əmˈpirik(ə)l/ adjective based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Quote objective of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind I very seldom use dictionaries for philosophy because as @Kevin Christensen showed, all observations are theory laden, and that shows here when ii speaks about "reality independent of the mind", which is a state subject to debate- see the Rorty quotes below. But at least they are good for showing common meanings of words- sometimes. Edited October 12, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
Ahab Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: This is not all that complicated. As usual it is about semantics and then we reify the words and presume that they are true statements about the nature of the world- when all they are are words which are confusing. ... Spiritual experiences are "empirical" but not "objective" . ... objective of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind I have said and will continue to say spiritual experiences are objective experiences and as evidence I point to the fact that many people do have the same spiritual experiences. You would have a valid argument if no 2 people ever had the same spiritual experience, when in that case the spiritual experience would be in the mind/spirit of only one individual, but that is not the case with true/real spiritual experiences. We are all spirits and when viewed as a collective we all experience the same kinds of spiritual experiences, even though sometimes we all do not experience all of them. Consider someone receiving the spiritual experience of communication from God, our Father, for example. Not all of us may remember or realize that we have received communication from him, but all of us can and already have. Some simply deny it because they do not realize they have or do not remember they have, but all of us have and can continue to receive communication from him.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 46 minutes ago, Ahab said: I have said and will continue to say spiritual experiences are objective experiences and as evidence I point to the fact that many people do have the same spiritual experiences. You would have a valid argument if no 2 people ever had the same spiritual experience, when in that case the spiritual experience would be in the mind/spirit of only one individual, but that is not the case with true/real spiritual experiences. We are all spirits and when viewed as a collective we all experience the same kinds of spiritual experiences, even though sometimes we all do not experience all of them. Consider someone receiving the spiritual experience of communication from God, our Father, for example. Not all of us may remember or realize that we have received communication from him, but all of us can and already have. Some simply deny it because they do not realize they have or do not remember they have, but all of us have and can continue to receive communication from him. If you use your own private definitions for such words, of course you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The problem for you here is that, using your definition, any Hindu Yogi or Buddhist Zen master can claim objectivity for his meditation. If anything can be objective, then nothing is objective. As Hugh Nibley observed, a testimony is not transferrable. Sure, you can tell people about it, but that does not verify it, does not make it objective.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jracforr said: “ Determinism” is somebody’s Circumstantial Evidence of reality, you and I have Empirical Evidence, that Natural Laws predetermined events, but they do not prevent the exercise of free will. Dumb animals are predestined to one fate or another, but Humanity can exercise choices and receive consequences, hence while a Presbyterian maybe “ Predisposed “ to salvation, he is not “ Predestined “ because he is not a dumb animal, therefore he can make choices good or bad. You might want to read up on Calvinism and on the absolute sovereignty of God -- which completely negates any possibility of free will. Salvation is never a choice in that theology. It is always predestined. There is nothing you can do to gain approval from God. He chooses or rejects you for Salvation. Your will is not involved. Quote The LDS Church and the entire ministry of Christ would be a mirage, if humanity could not act independently to determine it’s fate. Some people, based upon the errors of their forefathers have almost exclusively bad choices /option before them, but they can still choose the right up to a certain point . Drug addiction can take an individual beyond the point of no return, as do many other errors in life, but at some point, free will could have changed their destiny. Your version of LDS theology is indeed a mirage and delusion. There is a reason why LDS theology has free agency or free will as a cornerstone, but the reason why is unknown to you (and perhaps to most Latter-day Saints). You might want to consider these notions: The May 6, 1833 D&C 93:29,36 says that “Intelligence or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. . . . . the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.” The 1842 LDS Book of Abraham 3:18 says that intelligences “have no beginning, they existed before; they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are Gnolaum, or Eternal.” Gnolaum is the Sephardic Jewish transliteration of Hebrew ˁÔlām “eternal.” Abraham 3:21–23 goes on to say: “I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen. Now the lord had shewn unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones, and God saw these souls that they were good.” During his 1844 King Follett Funeral Oration, Joseph Smith said: Quote Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.[1] From William Clayton’s notes on Joseph Smith’s 1844 King Follett Address: Quote God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. He could not create himself --Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent principle--is a spirit from age to age & no creation about it.[2] Joseph Fielding Smith said: Quote If the Lord declares that intelligence, something which we do not fully understand, was co-eternal with him and always existed, there is no argument that we can or should present to contradict it. Why he cannot create intelligence is simply because intelligence, like time and space, always existed, and therefore did not have to be created. However, intelligences spoken of in the Book of Abraham were created, for these are spirit children of God, begotten sons.[3] Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual.[4] That spark of divinity which we call "intelligence" is the reason we have free will. Edited October 12, 2020 by Robert F. Smith
Ahab Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: If you use your own private definitions for such words, of course you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The problem for you here is that, using your definition, any Hindu Yogi or Buddhist Zen master can claim objectivity for his meditation. If anything can be objective, then nothing is objective. As Hugh Nibley observed, a testimony is not transferrable. Sure, you can tell people about it, but that does not verify it, does not make it objective. What do you call it when many people bear witness to the truth of the same thing? Like when many people testify that God has told them the Book of Mormon is what it is. I call that objective evidence. It is true that in some sense a testimony is not transferrable, but many people can and often do receive the same testimony from God about something with each one of them saying the same thing as an independent 3rd party witness to what 2 other witnesses are claiming.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Ahab said: What do you call it when many people bear witness to the truth of the same thing? Like when many people testify that God has told them the Book of Mormon is what it is. I call that objective evidence. That is in no sense objective evidence. Certainly an atheist will simply dismiss that as mass hallucination. In fact, they are individual testimonies. The Holy Spirit may confirm such testimonies to you, but there is nothing objective about that. 1 minute ago, Ahab said: It is true that in some sense a testimony is not transferrable, but many people can and often do receive the same testimony from God about something with each one of them saying the same thing as an independent 3rd party witness to what 2 other witnesses are claiming. Borrowed light is not objective. Brother Brigham used to criticize Saints who depended upon borrowed light, instead of gaining their own testimonies.
Ahab Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 Just now, Robert F. Smith said: That is in no sense objective evidence. Certainly an atheist will simply dismiss that as mass hallucination. In fact, they are individual testimonies. The Holy Spirit may confirm such testimonies to you, but there is nothing objective about that. As stated previously, objective evidence is of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. If the fact that something can be observed and experienced by multiple witnesses who experience the same thing does not constitute objective evidence, then what in your mind does? I say it is, even if you deny it. Just now, Robert F. Smith said: Borrowed light is not objective. Brother Brigham used to criticize Saints who depended upon borrowed light, instead of gaining their own testimonies. And yet again, as stated previously, objective evidence is of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. When multiple people boil water and tell others how they can boil water by following specific procedures, is there any objective evidence involved in the boiling of water and how may others come to know it if there is? What I see in the world is objective evidence presented by those who know what the truth is and some other people who actually deny and refuse to believe what the objective evidence clearly shows the truth is. I thank God that I am now free from all of that idiocy.
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ahab said: I have said and will continue to say spiritual experiences are objective experiences and as evidence I point to the fact that many people do have the same spiritual experiences. There is no way to know that the two experiences are the "same" since they would virtually always be described differently. For example- my bosom never HAS "burned"- that sounds like heartburn to me. I have felt something LIKE a warm shower of love fill my being. But love is not water and my description is different than others. It is nothing like weighing an object for, say, shipping and seeing the scale at 18.75 ounces and then charging the proper postal fee for that weight. Theoretically one might argue that it was not "really" 18.75 ounces and so they got cheated on shipping fees. All one has to do is bring out a scale and weigh the object with witnesses to confirm that the weight was actually 10.3 ounces, let's say No one else witnessed Joseph's vision. Even if they were standing behind him they would not see what he saw- OR if that was possible, there is no one who had the "same" experience or alleges to have the same experience. But suppose they also saw God and Christ!? But were they with the same trees behind the, the same shadows etc- and how would you prove that the vision was the "Same" as Joseph's?? That is why personal experiences cannot be called the "same" because no one can show that their experience is the same as anyone else's. It's like the doctor asking you how bad your pain is on a scale from 1-10. You say 7. How can the doctor check to see if "in fact" it is not an 8 or a 3? And what you call an 8 - if you have not had much pain in your life- others might report as a 3 because they had the experience of passing a 9 cm kidney stone and you have never had anything that painful, so your scale is entirely different than his. On a scale of 1-10 how much pain did Jesus experience and was the physical pain worse than the emotional? I won't say we will NEVER know but certainly not on this side of the veil. And can we have the "same" experience? Pretty absurd!! "And how much did your bosom burn on a scale of 1-10?" Obviously I think it shows how absurd it is to say you have had the "same" spiritual experience as another person. YES though- 16 million people MIGHT report that they did in fact have A spiritual experience. YES they agree and their experiences ARE, imo, "empirical". But objective? No because I cannot ever know if my experience is the "same" as theirs. The whole point is that we tend to throw around these terms but never think about what it means to speak with precision. Edited October 12, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: blah blah blah. still can't hit that right button every time!
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 Brave people die for their BELIEFS that we naturally have rights which are "inalienable" and NOT granted by society What is the objective or even empirical evidence that inalienable rights even "exist"?? Their lives are changed because of their BELIEF in these rights, without evidence. They change their lives entirely and join the military No one needs historical evidence or ANY evidence except their beliefs in their hearts that such rights exist and that they are worth going to war and dying for them. They even go to war and die for these beliefs - not for themselves but for others in far away lands whom they have never seen before nor will see. If people die for beliefs in human rights that change their lives- when it cannot be shown that such beliefs are "TRUE" or in any way "Exist" why then would a person demand EVIDENCE for a belief in God??? It is not "facts" that make us brave or give us salvation it is the BELIEF -without evidence- that that is the kind of world worth dying for It is knowing for one's self without evidence which is measurable, that God forgives sins, which makes us a Christian. The scriptures do not give us evidence and evidence is not necessary for salvation John 3:16 Quote For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting It does not say anything about evidence. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 7 hours ago, Ahab said: As stated previously, objective evidence is of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. If the fact that something can be observed and experienced by multiple witnesses who experience the same thing does not constitute objective evidence, then what in your mind does? I say it is, even if you deny it. And yet again, as stated previously, objective evidence is of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. When multiple people boil water and tell others how they can boil water by following specific procedures, is there any objective evidence involved in the boiling of water and how may others come to know it if there is? What I see in the world is objective evidence presented by those who know what the truth is and some other people who actually deny and refuse to believe what the objective evidence clearly shows the truth is. I thank God that I am now free from all of that idiocy. Assertion is not the same as fact, and a bunch of individual assertions don't suddenly become objective fact. Objective evidence must be repeatable under laboratory conditions. The boiling water thing (which Mark Bukowski mentioned) is a good lab experiment, but must be done under controlled conditions. If we substitute your by gosh and by golly method, we end up with nothing more than intersubjective assumptions -- which would lead to false convictions in a court of law. We must have a higher standard than that. That is the reason why Brother Brigham condemned living on borrowed light, and recommended that each person gain his own testimony. Such intersubjective experience is not suddenly objective evidence which may be used in a court of law. It remains internal and subjective to each person. Not the same at all as a lab experiment which can be published as objective fact. Otherwise mass hallucinations would be called objective, which they certainly are not. That may seem like idiocy to you, but our modern scientific apparatus is based it. 1
Jracforr Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: the Lord declares that intelligence, something which we do not fully understand, was co-eternal with him and always existed, there is no argument that we can or should present to contradict it. Why he cannot create intelligence is simply because intelligence, like time and space, always existed, and therefore did not have to be created. However, intelligences spoken of in the Book of Abraham were created, for these are spirit children of God, begotten sons.[3] Some What is called Intelligence is also called Wisdom, or the wise use of Knowledge , God can bestow Wisdom on his chosen ones and thereby give them Godlike abilities, thus enabling them to choose, act and direct events, instead of being subjected to chance and circumstances only, or what you affectionately call “Determinism “. Yes the laws of nature set boundaries for our action, but we also have free agency to act for our selves. You don’t need Philosophers to tell you otherwise , your own experiences can clearly indicate that fact. Wisdom/Intelligence are the attributes of God, this is what makes him God, and he can impart some of his qualities to whom he wishes, that is the the invitation he extend to us mere Mortals. If we accept the conditions attendant to God invitation, our lives will be less subjected to chance and circumstances. The technical capabilities of our generation, are beyond the comprehension of our ancient ancestors, who would regard us as Gods or Sorcerer if they could see us now. It is obvious that the more we partake of God’s Wisdom/Intelligence, the less we are impounded by Determinism.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) On 10/13/2020 at 7:58 AM, Jracforr said: What is called Intelligence is also called Wisdom, or the wise use of Knowledge , God can bestow Wisdom on his chosen ones and thereby give them Godlike abilities, thus enabling them to choose, act and direct events, instead of being subjected to chance and circumstances only, or what you affectionately call “Determinism “. Yes the laws of nature set boundaries for our action, but we also have free agency to act for our selves. You don’t need Philosophers to tell you otherwise , your own experiences can clearly indicate that fact. Wisdom/Intelligence are the attributes of God, this is what makes him God, and he can impart some of his qualities to whom he wishes, that is the the invitation he extend to us mere Mortals. If we accept the conditions attendant to God invitation, our lives will be less subjected to chance and circumstances. The technical capabilities of our generation, are beyond the comprehension of our ancient ancestors, who would regard us as Gods or Sorcerer if they could see us now. It is obvious that the more we partake of God’s Wisdom/Intelligence, the less we are impounded by Determinism. The use of the word "intelligence" in this context has nothing to do with wisdom or IQ. It is a spark of divinity which makes us and God unique and coeternal. It is the sole reason why we have free agency -- which is not a gift of God, but is inherent within us, for the same reason it is inherent in God. Without that eternal attribute, we have no free will. Edited October 14, 2020 by Robert F. Smith 3
Ahab Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 18 hours ago, mfbukowski said: There is no way to know that the two experiences are the "same" since they would virtually always be described differently. For example- my bosom never HAS "burned"- that sounds like heartburn to me. I have felt something LIKE a warm shower of love fill my being. But love is not water and my description is different than others. It is nothing like weighing an object for, say, shipping and seeing the scale at 18.75 ounces and then charging the proper postal fee for that weight. Theoretically one might argue that it was not "really" 18.75 ounces and so they got cheated on shipping fees. All one has to do is bring out a scale and weigh the object with witnesses to confirm that the weight was actually 10.3 ounces, let's say No one else witnessed Joseph's vision. Even if they were standing behind him they would not see what he saw- OR if that was possible, there is no one who had the "same" experience or alleges to have the same experience. But suppose they also saw God and Christ!? But were they with the same trees behind the, the same shadows etc- and how would you prove that the vision was the "Same" as Joseph's?? That is why personal experiences cannot be called the "same" because no one can show that their experience is the same as anyone else's. It's like the doctor asking you how bad your pain is on a scale from 1-10. You say 7. How can the doctor check to see if "in fact" it is not an 8 or a 3? And what you call an 8 - if you have not had much pain in your life- others might report as a 3 because they had the experience of passing a 9 cm kidney stone and you have never had anything that painful, so your scale is entirely different than his. On a scale of 1-10 how much pain did Jesus experience and was the physical pain worse than the emotional? I won't say we will NEVER know but certainly not on this side of the veil. And can we have the "same" experience? Pretty absurd!! "And how much did your bosom burn on a scale of 1-10?" Obviously I think it shows how absurd it is to say you have had the "same" spiritual experience as another person. YES though- 16 million people MIGHT report that they did in fact have A spiritual experience. YES they agree and their experiences ARE, imo, "empirical". But objective? No because I cannot ever know if my experience is the "same" as theirs. The whole point is that we tend to throw around these terms but never think about what it means to speak with precision. There is such a thing as being "precise" with language and there is something else called being "nit-picky". When different people boil water the exact same thing may not be happening in each situation but anyone can see that water will boil under similar-enough circumstances. Who knows, maybe someone's thermometer isn't calibrated exactly like someone else's thermometer and they might disagree on exactly what temperature "their" water was boiling. When I'm talking about how many people observe the same spiritual experiences I am talking about how many people agree on receiving the same spiritual assurances on not just one but many issues. I am not the only member of a church called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has received assurances from God on many issues. Those who not had those spiritual experiences have simply not had them, and that fact doesn't negate or diminish the fact that many have had those experiences. Why do you think we often tell the whole world that anyone can know the truth of all things through the power of the Holy Ghost? I think it's at least partly because we believe others will receive the same answers we have received, the same basic spiritual experiences. And if we didn't believe others could receive the same spiritual experiences that we have received and observed I think we would then need to find something else to tell them, like: "I don't know why you didn't receive the same spiritual experience that I received and observed. Maybe God told you something contrary to what he told me." But no, we tell others they can receive the same spiritual experience that we received and observed. Essentially the same spiritual experiences.
Ahab Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Assertion is not the same as fact, and a bunch of individual assertions don't suddenly become objective fact. Objective evidence must be repeatable under laboratory conditions. The boiling water thing (which Mark Bukowski mentioned) is a good lab experiment, but must be done under controlled conditions. If we substitute your by gosh and by golly method, we end up with nothing more than intersubjective assumptions -- which would lead to false convictions in a court of law. We must have a higher standard than that. That is the reason why Brother Brigham condemned living on borrowed light, and recommended that each person gain his own testimony. Such intersubjective experience is not suddenly objective evidence which may be used in a court of law. It remains internal and subjective to each person. Not the same at all as a lab experiment which can be published as objective fact. Otherwise mass hallucinations would be called objective, which they certainly are not. That may seem like idiocy to you, but our modern scientific apparatus is based it. Try again to understand what I wrote and then respond to my comments, again. I think what we have here is your failure to understand my point.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Try again to understand what I wrote and then respond to my comments, again. I think what we have here is your failure to understand my point. That's what happens when you invent a special world in which any fantasy becomes fact. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Ahab said: There is such a thing as being "precise" with language and there is something else called being "nit-picky". When different people boil water the exact same thing may not be happening in each situation but anyone can see that water will boil under similar-enough circumstances. Who knows, maybe someone's thermometer isn't calibrated exactly like someone else's thermometer and they might disagree on exactly what temperature "their" water was boiling. When I'm talking about how many people observe the same spiritual experiences I am talking about how many people agree on receiving the same spiritual assurances on not just one but many issues. I am not the only member of a church called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has received assurances from God on many issues. Those who not had those spiritual experiences have simply not had them, and that fact doesn't negate or diminish the fact that many have had those experiences. Why do you think we often tell the whole world that anyone can know the truth of all things through the power of the Holy Ghost? I think it's at least partly because we believe others will receive the same answers we have received, the same basic spiritual experiences. And if we didn't believe others could receive the same spiritual experiences that we have received and observed I think we would then need to find something else to tell them, like: "I don't know why you didn't receive the same spiritual experience that I received and observed. Maybe God told you something contrary to what he told me." But no, we tell others they can receive the same spiritual experience that we received and observed. Essentially the same spiritual experiences. So in a court of law, interpreting a statute should we be "nit picky"? After all it's only a life that may be at stake. In a discussion like this where one may convince a philosophically minded investigator (and that would include all the participants in this discussion, since they are spending a portion of their lives to establish their individual views as "true" so that they can live with the life decisions they have made) you want to show they are wrong because they are being "nit-picky"? After all, it's only re-joining the church or not. And in both cases it hangs on understanding nuanced language. But no, we cannot go there because the issue is "nit-picky"? "Sorry, not sorry" I will continue being nit-picky, thank you! 2
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Try again to understand what I wrote and then respond to my comments, again. I think what we have here is your failure to understand my point. Just as advice, that is treating a man with much wisdom and most certainly a well known scholar in these circles as a child. You really need to give him the respect due. I would not "nanny" anyone else but I know we can be very direct with each other. He responded as he did because YOUR comments were quite unclear. His point was similar to mine in regard to these comments- it is you who are being very vague in your use of language. Edited October 13, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
Jracforr Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is the sole reason why we have free agency -- which is not a gift of God, but is inherent within us, for the same reason it is in inherent in God. Without that eternal attribute, we have no free will. Your quote indicated you recognized that Humans have free will or free agency. I think we are making progress here,I expected a quote on determinism, congratulations, however we need not differ on the subtleties in the meaning of IQ, wisdom or intelligence, that’s another day’s discussion . Edited October 13, 2020 by Jracforr
mrmarklin Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 On 10/12/2020 at 2:08 PM, Ahab said: It is true that in some sense a testimony is not transferrable, but many people can and often do receive the same testimony from God about something with each one of them saying the same thing as an independent 3rd party witness to what 2 other witnesses are claiming. Legally speaking, it's a basic rule of evidence. AFAIK
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2020 Posted October 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Jracforr said: Your quote indicated you recognized that Humans have free will or free agency. I think we are making progress here,I expected a quote on determinism, congratulations, however we need not differ on the subtleties in the meaning of IQ, wisdom or intelligence, that’s another day’s discussion . I repeatedly probed your knowledge of LDS theology, and found that you don't understand it, finally having to explain what you should long since have recognized. Not understanding the foundational principles is the reason for your continual failure to comprehend such pivotal matters as free agency in a deterministic universe. Your approach denies the existence of free will because it accepts as normative the Protestant and Catholic theology of God. That is not a sin, and it is not uncommon among Latter-day Saints not to understand their own theology. One need not understand that theology to be a good Mormon who has a testimony. However, it does leave one vulnerable to questions about such key issues as free will.
Recommended Posts