defensive ploys, religion, science

[_Milesius]

I don't claim to know anything.

You should stop there.

[_CSA]

I don't claim to know anything. I believe in the gospel of the CoJCoLDS, and I have faith that Joseph Smith saw what he said he saw.

And I submit to the critics here, that it is by this type of faith that many will be saved while science and scientist will continue to disprove itself.

[_Milesius]

8. The pretense that religions such as the Mormon religion only make assertions that are not even in principle scientifically or even rationally scrutable. “You can’t put God in a test tube”. This might work more or less well for mystical traditions but Mormonism makes numerous assertions about the existence or nonexistence of middle-sized objects and physical beings as well as assertions about dubious historical events.

I say that, as I think it is correct, but I am not a Mormon, of course. (Not anymore, anyway.)

9. “We don’t even need anything empirical here at all:
Godel’s ontological argument…bam!...therefore baby Jesus.”
Really?

Has anyone on these Mormon-related boards appealed to Gödel's ontological argument apart from me? In any event, I would not make an argument of the form "Godel’s ontological argument…bam!...therefore baby Jesus" as I do not think it legitimately follows.

[_CSA]

That great and spacious building near the iron-rod is a science building full of atheist and scientist who continue to mock faith and belief because it does not quite fit with their scientific method.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Absolutely not. There is no way to know for certain that I exist, or that you exist.

I believe I exist. All available evidence points to me existing. I have faith I exist. I do not know I exist, and neither do you.

So is there no way to know for certain that Joseph Smith existed? What about your wife? Your children? Is this the same logic you apply in your day-to-day life? I doubt very much that it is.

[_Tarski]

Absolutely not. There is no way to know for certain that I exist, or that you exist.

I believe I exist. All available evidence points to me existing. I have faith I exist. I do not know I exist, and neither do you.

Does God know that he exists for certain??
How?

Isn't he stuck with his subjective experiences which as far as he knows may be all illusions or dreams.

[_Ren]

Simon,

Let me clarify...

When I ask the question 'Do you know you exist?' - I'm not saying you have to be absolutely correct (or 'know') about the 'nature' of your existence.

i.e. I'm not asking if you 'Know' you are a human being living on the spinning rock known as 'Earth'.
I accept that for the purposes of this discussion, you could actually be:

* Plugged into 'The Matrix'
* A brain in a vat of chemicals
* Some kind of advanced A.I. routine...
* An abstract set of thoughts somehow magically floating around inside a 'void' (and your sense of 'reality' is just a self-generated dream...)

..or whatever else our imaginations can conjure up. I accept that you can't KNOW that any of the above is or isn't true.

But in all the above situations, 'You' still exist.

How do you 'Know'? Because you are having thoughts!
You think, therefore you are

Thoughts don't require sensory inputs that you can claim you don't totally trust. So why doubt - to any extent - your own existience?!

You can confirm that you are thinking right now. Can't you? Can't you Know that?
If not, then your position - as far as I can teill - is even BEYOND Solipsism!
Quite astonishing... (And even more astonishing that you seem so pleased with yourself for arriving at such a - frankly insane - conclusion...)


But don't worry - I'm sure it's pretty much every serious thinker who has every lived that's full of ****. Not you... :)

I do not know I exist, and neither do you.

Ermm - you'd better speak for yourself buddy ;)

I DO Know I exist. With a captial K. Legitametly.
I can completely distrust every single one of my senses, and yet still KNOW this.

Do you understand why? Hmm - I guess not... :/


I have to agree with others in this thread. It seems like doggedly sticking to the claim that "You literally don't 'know' anything" is a desirable conclusion to you - because you feel that stance enables the freedom to legitimately 'believe' whatever the hell you want.

That seems transparently obvious.

Hardly seems worth discussing the finer points of scientific epistemology with somebody so committed to such 'intellectual nihilism'.

[_NorthboundZax]

I have to agree with others in this thread. It seems like doggedly sticking to the claim that "You literally don't 'know' anything" is a desirable conclusion to you - because you feel that stance enables the freedom to legitimately 'believe' whatever the hell you want.

That seems transparently obvious.

Hardly seems worth discussing the finer points of scientific epistemology with somebody so committed to such 'intellectual nihilism'.

I've had discussions with other LDS that take this odd tack in the face of science. The oddest part to me is not so much how strained it is, but how counter it is to Mormonism to begin with. The Gospel is "true" with a capital "T" and you can "know" it with a capital "K". Simon's position junks all falsifiable certainty of everything to save the possibility that it could be true despite all the evidence to the contrary.

That a world-view that touts certainty in an uncertain world has to resort to a world of complete uncertainty to keep itself propped up is very telling.

[_hatersinmyward]

This is what science in religion have in common.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 1:

Some guy has or claims to have had a spiritual experience and then there is a spin off affect.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 2:

Some scientist had or claims to have made some discovery and then there is a spin off affect.

_______________________________________________________________________________

In both cases the person may have been wrong, making everything based on their findings a bunch of crap.

[_malkie]

This is what science in religion have in common.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 1:

Some guy has or claims to have had a spiritual experience and then there is a spin off affect.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 2:

Some scientist had or claims to have made some discovery and then there is a spin off affect.

_______________________________________________________________________________

In both cases the person may have been wrong, making everything based on their findings a bunch of crap.

And somehow, out of this commonality, the results based on their findings are:

Religion: - - - - - <please fill in the blanks>
Science: - - - - - <please fill in the blanks>