What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_maklelan]

But this test assumes that God acts inside the same mathematical system as physics. Humans don't, so why should we assume that God will?

Well, that's kinda the point here.

So you agree that a sentient being with free will, like any human, cannot have their decision making defined and predicted by science?

[_asbestosman]

I think it takes effort to attune yourself to the Spirit and knowledge from God. I know that allows for big mistakes in the beginning, but I think it's more like learning how to be a good hunter/tracker. One can eventually become quite skilled in discerning the Spirit.

How is this any different than a new Jehovah's Witness eventually learning how to think of and give all the "correct" answers to questions from other Jehovah's Witnesses? How is this anything other than a person getting the hang of this Jehovah's Witnesses thing?

If one must an expert hunter/tracker to discern the true witness from God and a false witness, on what basis does anyone ever conclude that a witness is in fact from God? How do they know when they've reached the standard of reliable hunter/tracker, and aren't simply making a mistake again, for the millionth time?

And how is a witness from God a reliable indicator of truth if one must learn to separate the true witnesses from the false witnesses, without some kind of objective standard by which to judge between them? Is that how we tell people to pray about the Book of Mormon? Here, read this, pray about it as stated in Moroni. You may not get the "correct" answer at first, because you're not very good at discerning the correct answer from the incorrect answers, but keep trying and eventually you'll figure it out?

It has something to do with experience. I tried to write about that too. Consider where I mention falsifiability:

I also believe that it is falsifiable. However, I do not believe that others can falsify it for me. It was only personally verifiable and so it is only personally falsifiable. I believe that one could know it was false one truly and sincerely (in their own honest estimation, not mine) tried to follow the commandments and found that it didn't work--that the promises were not true--that they do not find happiness and enlightenment from it. A palm-reader scenario wouldn't work because it's out in the open for others to verify.

[_maklelan]

Does he speak of my personal faith, or does he reduce the faiths of millions to one easy to handle formula that he then takes apart?

"The faith of millions..." ah, you're so close Maklelan!

The real problem is millions of faiths.

Read my quote just a little harder.

Maklelan, I don't really want to do the rounds on this. You asked if Sagan makes a certain argument. No, in fact he makes a different argument. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not trying to go any rounds with you. My post uses the plural "faiths," and you responded to it (and even quoted it again) as if it were singular. I'm well aware of the different brands of faith that exist.

[_Who Knows]

I also believe that many people can and do verify that the church is true. Some of them may even do so in small groups. However, I do not think any of them can prove it to anyone else. In general, I think most of us verify it in private with God although any of us are privileged to go though the verification process--old, young, bond, free, male, female, etc.

And I think this ZKP theory proves that moroni's process doesn't work - is not reliable. For example, if peggy ever travels down the wrong path, you know that she is lying, and that she doesn't have the answer. Also, if everyone doesn't always get the same answer after testing moroni's promise, you know that it doesn't work.

Of course, you can argue that they're not following the process correctly. ;)

[_asbestosman]

You're right that ZKP could be verified in front of an audience. However, if only one person coult verify, then there would be no way for that person to prove that he indeed verified it to others who had not been there themselves.

Sure he could. He could lay out the methods used. And anyone could re-produce the exact same result using the exact same process. That's how he would 'prove' it. In essence, the method has been proven. As it has in this case (statistically).

You're right that anyone can verify it by following the methods used. However, one could not invalidate my experience/knowledge by claiming that they followed the steps and arrived at a different conclusion. The falsification is something I must experience personally. Does that make sense?

[_asbestosman]

For example, if peggy ever travels down the wrong path, you know that she is lying, and that she doesn't have the answer.

Right!

Also, if everyone doesn't always get the same answer after testing moroni's promise, you know that it doesn't work.

I disagree. There is no reason for me to trust their accounting of events. They could be mistaken. I must verify (or falsify) the claims through my own experience.

[_The Dude]

If you go back to that Cave Story (in the link you gave) and allow Peggy to "not be tempted" except when she feels like it, then how can Victor ever eliminate the possibility that she is lying to him? Fifty percent of the time she will come back by the wrong corridor and say "I wasn't feeling like it that time so it doesn't count."

I believe the example pointed out that over time (after enough samples), you can statistically eliminate this. (kinda like flipping a coin 20 times in a row - it's just not going to be heads every single time).

Right. But you can't get enough samples in a game with God because he "won't be tempted" to participate in any real experiment. For this reason, the analogy between science and so-called religious experiments is false.

[_The Dude]

Also, if everyone doesn't always get the same answer after testing moroni's promise, you know that it doesn't work.

I disagree. There is no reason for me to trust their accounting of events. They could be mistaken. I must verify (or falsify) the claims through my own experience.

How is it falsified?

These experiments have only two outcomes:
Burning in your bosom = True
Nothing = Try again, 'cause you did it wrong or God just doesn't want to be tempted at this time.
??? = False?

[_Who Knows]

I disagree. There is no reason for me to trust their accounting of events. They could be mistaken. I must verify (or falsify) the claims through my own experience.

Well, then technically, you should be able to go through the process again, and see if they're doing it right - re-test it. The same goes for your situation. I should be able to observe you to see if you get the same result.

Anyways, I can't even remember why we're debating this. Was it that you were arguing that this process didn't follow the normal scientific protocols, yet it is science? Or something like that?

[_Who Knows]

So you agree that a sentient being with free will, like any human, cannot have their decision making defined and predicted by science?

Ok man, enough of the questions followed by putting words in my mouth. I've given you my position.