If I’d have an unsearched for an epiphany—a real one where I can’t say I was hallucinating but, e.g., a major consistent insight or a proof of God.
Sadly this stance is well documented in scripture as unlikely to bear fruit. John 7:17 indicates “the proof is in the pudding”—act first and then see (1 John 4 also states “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits”—a test requires proactive action). John 6:9-14,30 suggests such a miracle won’t be enough for some (of those fed, they requested a sign) - see also 1 Nephi 3:29-31 with 1 Nephi 7:10 (seeing an angel only produced a temporary change in attitude) or 3 Nephi 2:1-2 (civilization scale, seeing signs only produced a temporary change).
D&C 63:6-7 suggests requiring a sign before trying things isn’t a promising direction; see D&C 63:9-10 - signs come after, not before faith. Sherem (Jacob 7:13-15) and Korihor (Alma 30:43-50) both demanded and received a sign, but not in a pleasant way. See also Ether 12:6 (“ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith”).
Okay, so what’s the alternative to waiting for a sign? I pointed to it above—try increasing lived alignment with a doctrine/principle someone claims is true and look at the outcomes. Bayesian updating is a great example of one Yudkowsky goes on about and which I have enjoyed (and it also provides tools to talk about testing things). Alma 32 contains a very good discourse on this.
I’ve cited the Book of Mormon several times here—the fun thing is the book provides an experiment you can perform to decide if you should trust the contents of the book. Simple in principle, not trivial to set up (but I feel it worthwhile). Moroni 10:3-5 outlines it: 1) read the book, ponder in heart God’s mercy 2) ask God in the name of Christ with a) sincere heart b) real intent (which I read as you’ll actually do something with the information) c) faith in Christ. If 2c is difficult, Alma 32 gives a pattern for developing faith—functionally the same idea as John 7:17 (decide to try it out, see if the outcome fits). 2c just requires faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in the Book of Mormon as a precondition to know if the book is true (which would be circular and boring).
I got here from a comment made on an article about prayer itself linked from one of Yudkowsky’s stories. I enjoy those (along with many other writers) as they provide a different perspective which can help me learn more things that are true. “Through diverse views is truth made clear” (https://iiridayn.info/filk/ThroughDiverseViews.txt).
Anyway, I’m not an angel, hallucination, or epiphany, but I hope you’ll consider trying out the principle of experimentation on at least some of the things I’ve said. I know for myself God is real, Jesus lives (not just lived), God speaks to man today, etc, and you can know too. The Moroni 10:3-5 experiment worked for me when I pursued it honestly and with real intent (incidentally God gave me a mild rebuke which is a bit embarrassing but meh).
In short, faith precedes the miracle (Ether 12:6), and what precedes faith? A desire to investigate (Alma 32). Please do!
Sadly this stance is well documented in scripture as unlikely to bear fruit. John 7:17 indicates “the proof is in the pudding”—act first and then see (1 John 4 also states “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits”—a test requires proactive action). John 6:9-14,30 suggests such a miracle won’t be enough for some (of those fed, they requested a sign) - see also 1 Nephi 3:29-31 with 1 Nephi 7:10 (seeing an angel only produced a temporary change in attitude) or 3 Nephi 2:1-2 (civilization scale, seeing signs only produced a temporary change).
D&C 63:6-7 suggests requiring a sign before trying things isn’t a promising direction; see D&C 63:9-10 - signs come after, not before faith. Sherem (Jacob 7:13-15) and Korihor (Alma 30:43-50) both demanded and received a sign, but not in a pleasant way. See also Ether 12:6 (“ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith”).
Okay, so what’s the alternative to waiting for a sign? I pointed to it above—try increasing lived alignment with a doctrine/principle someone claims is true and look at the outcomes. Bayesian updating is a great example of one Yudkowsky goes on about and which I have enjoyed (and it also provides tools to talk about testing things). Alma 32 contains a very good discourse on this.
I’ve cited the Book of Mormon several times here—the fun thing is the book provides an experiment you can perform to decide if you should trust the contents of the book. Simple in principle, not trivial to set up (but I feel it worthwhile). Moroni 10:3-5 outlines it: 1) read the book, ponder in heart God’s mercy 2) ask God in the name of Christ with a) sincere heart b) real intent (which I read as you’ll actually do something with the information) c) faith in Christ. If 2c is difficult, Alma 32 gives a pattern for developing faith—functionally the same idea as John 7:17 (decide to try it out, see if the outcome fits). 2c just requires faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in the Book of Mormon as a precondition to know if the book is true (which would be circular and boring).
I got here from a comment made on an article about prayer itself linked from one of Yudkowsky’s stories. I enjoy those (along with many other writers) as they provide a different perspective which can help me learn more things that are true. “Through diverse views is truth made clear” (https://iiridayn.info/filk/ThroughDiverseViews.txt).
Anyway, I’m not an angel, hallucination, or epiphany, but I hope you’ll consider trying out the principle of experimentation on at least some of the things I’ve said. I know for myself God is real, Jesus lives (not just lived), God speaks to man today, etc, and you can know too. The Moroni 10:3-5 experiment worked for me when I pursued it honestly and with real intent (incidentally God gave me a mild rebuke which is a bit embarrassing but meh).
In short, faith precedes the miracle (Ether 12:6), and what precedes faith? A desire to investigate (Alma 32). Please do!