What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_Who Knows]

It is, of course, witnessable at least in private. But what if God's cave is only large enough for one witness at a time?

No - whether it's in public or private is irrelevant. ZKP was designed so that it could operate in public. That's the whole point of it, right?

Right, the question isn't what the secret is, but rather that Peggy knows it. Likewise, I think what God reveals is that the church is true, not how He knows that.

You're switching it up when you move from Peggy to God. What you should say is this:

the question isn't what the secret is, but rather that Peggy knows it. Likewise, using ZKP, God would only reveal that he knows the answer - not what the answer is. And this information is observable by anyone.

You can't alter the fundamental parameters of ZKP, but then say it's still essentially ZKP.

[_asbestosman]

The problem is, to the critics it looks like the answers/non-answers from God are perfectly explainable by the hypothesis that God doesn't even exist, and that the "answers" one believes they receive from God are in fact self-induced and self-invented, or else suggested by 3rd parties.

This is why you'd have to experience it yourself to verify it. This is why a testimony cannot rely on borrowed light.

To the believers, the answers received or not received by God are explained as God testing our faith, or God operating based on what he knows best for us, and that our ways are not God's ways.

Some use those reasons, but I'm saying that the proof (or disproof) will be experienced by those who sincerely keep the commandments after a few months. I think there are many TBMs who haven't properly verified things--perhaps I'm one of them. However, I think there are also many who have even though I have no way of proving it or determing which category anyone would belong to.

[Analytics]

It is, of course, witnessable at least in private. But what if God's cave is only large enough for one witness at a time?

No - whether it's in public or private is irrelevant. ZKP was designed so that it could operate in public. That's the whole point of it, right?

Right, the question isn't what the secret is, but rather that Peggy knows it. Likewise, I think what God reveals is that the church is true, not how He knows that.

You're switching it up when you move from Peggy to God. What you should say is this:

the question isn't what the secret is, but rather that Peggy knows it. Likewise, using ZKP, God would only reveal that he knows the answer - not what the answer is. And this information is observable by anyone.

You can't alter the fundamental parameters of ZKP, but then say it's still essentially ZKP.

Fine. I'm not using ZKP. I'm using a new form of verification (which also valid) and which was inspired by ZKP. Now please tell me why I can't do that to obtain a personal verification of God's word.

And actually, public verification isn't the point of ZKP. Public vs private verification has nothing to do with ZKP. The whole point of ZKP is verification in such a manner that the secret is not revealed. It was not designed to be able to do public verification. Any verification is sufficient.

[_The Dude]

I think Sethbag is following the same line of thought I was using. Along these lines, I'm still thinking ZKP breaks down because religion postulates that Peggy (God) is fickle and won't be tempted into interactions that yield statistically valid results.

[_Who Knows]

Fine. I'm not using ZKP. I'm using a new form of verification (which also valid) and which was inspired by ZKP. Now please tell me why I can't do that to obtain a personal verification of God's word.

I never said you couldn't! I only said that it wasn't 'science'. I mean, that's what got us off on this whole thing in the first place right? We said it wasn't science, and you said 'what about ZKP'?

[_Who Knows]

I think Sethbag is following the same line of thought I was using. Along these lines, I'm still thinking ZKP breaks down because religion postulates that Peggy (God) is fickle and won't be tempted into interactions that yield statistically valid results.

I don't agree. I don't think ABman is saying that Peggy (God) is the one who's fickle. I think they're saying that we're the one's who aren't doing it right. We're not following the directions to the T - after all, science requires that, right? In other words, if we don't get the right result, we may not have the right amount of faith, or our hearts may not be open enough, etc. It's not the process that's breaking down, it's our re-performance of it that is.

[_asbestosman]

Fine. I'm not using ZKP. I'm using a new form of verification (which also valid) and which was inspired by ZKP. Now please tell me why I can't do that to obtain a personal verification of God's word.

I never said you couldn't! I only said that it wasn't 'science'. I mean, that's what got us off on this whole thing in the first place right? We said it wasn't science, and you said 'what about ZKP'?

Religious verification isn't science in the sense that it isn't publicly verifiable. However, I believe that like science it is a valid and justifiable way to discern truth.

My big point with ZKP is that maybe I could be right about religion and have justifiable reasons for accepting it as true even though I couldn't prove it to you. Likewise I could be wrong but you wouldn't be able to prove it to me (unless you point out a foundational contradiction). I mean maybe I can't prove to you tha the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared to me and proved he knew the super-secret recipie for any Italian food I would ask him for, but if I did then I would have a good reason for believing in him even though you do not. Does that make sense?

[_asbestosman]

I think Sethbag is following the same line of thought I was using. Along these lines, I'm still thinking ZKP breaks down because religion postulates that Peggy (God) is fickle and won't be tempted into interactions that yield statistically valid results.

I don't agree. I don't think ABman is saying that Peggy (God) is the one who's fickle. I think they're saying that we're the one's who aren't doing it right. We're not following the directions to the T - after all, science requires that, right? In other words, if we don't get the right result, we may not have the right amount of faith, or our hearts may not be open enough, etc. It's not the process that's breaking down, it's our re-performance of it that is.

Yes. But to be fair, perhaps its our (TBM) performance of it that is off. That is why you cannot just take our word for it. If you are certain that you performed the steps properly, then you are justified in accpeting or rejecting the church in accordance with the results you experienced.

[_Who Knows]

Religious verification isn't science in the sense that it isn't publicly verifiable. However, I believe that like science it is a valid and justifiable way to discern truth.

But that's the point - it's nothing like science as we know it! It's pseudoscience. It purports to be science, or give the same results as science (ie "it's just as valid as real science") but it's not, because it doesn't follow the scientific method.

My big point with ZKP is that maybe I could be right about religion and have justifiable reasons for accepting it as true even though I couldn't prove it to you. Likewise I could be wrong but you wouldn't be able to prove it to me (unless you point out a foundational contradiction). I mean maybe I can't prove to you tha the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared to me and proved he knew the super-secret recipie for any Italian food I would ask him for, but if I did then I would have a good reason for believing in him even though you do not. Does that make sense?

Sure, you could be right, but again, it's not science. Like I said earlier, that's how we got started here, right?

Sagan said religion is pseudoscience
You said "no it's not - here's some quotes from the FARMS review where it shows that religion (the LDS religion more specifically) is not pseudoscience - it is science"
And you also gave ZKP as an example to demonstrate how it could be considered science.

Again, whether you're right or not is irrelevant. How you purport to get there is - and it's not science.

[_Sethbag]

Abman, but what you're saying is that the results may not be publicaly verifiable because of the fickleness of God in the manner in which he provides the answers, however you as an individual can discern and trust the real answer from God, despite this fickleness?