Thank you for explaining.
Conversation
Happy to answer! I may expound more on these questions in a blog post in a few days.
2
When you do, can you try to answer: “it feels right” is unacceptable in other areas of study; why’s it a valid justification here?
2
1
I wrote more on my blog in response your questions the other day. Thanks for asking. bjhomer.blogspot.com/2014/04/mormon
1
Thanks. Not sure I understand. Are you saying “ ‘this communication came from God’ is not a hypothesis I’m trying to falsify”?
2
But I am saying that it's difficult to apply the traditional hypothesis model of inquiry to revelation. Does that help?
1
Yep, that’s what I needed to hear; thank you.
1
I would also assert that there are many things which are true, but not verifiable in that way. (e.g. 'My wife loves me.')
1
Hm. There are observations which could falsify that hypothesis, though. Are there observations which could falsify your faith?
4
But if one perceived revelation is false, how do I explain others that were true, and contained new information?
3
Replying to
Are there no alternative explanations for the source of that information? Can you falsify that information?
Replying to
"X person was just admitted to the hospital; you should go visit them." Simple random chance that it was right? Perhaps.
1
Sure. “Chance” does not require new axia, so it is much more admissible in my view, until far too many compound to be chance.