If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, do you desire to believe that Joseph Smith was not a prophet?
Are you a rationalist? Did you convert because you were rationally persuaded to convert?
I swear, if you can make an ironclad rational argument for Mormonism, I will personally convert. I don’t think you can. Nothing personal (I don’t know you, wish you personally the best) but I don’t think you’re a rationalist, precisely because you converted to Mormonism. Prove me wrong!
I swear, if you can make an ironclad rational argument for Mormonism
What do you mean by “ironclad”?
In my experience people who claim that they’ll change their position if presented with evidence passing a vaguely defined standard, will retroactively raise that standard so that whatever evidence is presented fails to pass.
My current opinion is that the doctrines of the Mormon church are wildly ridiculous, pernicious, and manifestly false. In other words, these are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I don’t think calcsam can provide anything like the necessary degree of extraordinary evidence. I think it’s much more likely that I’d be struck by lightning while winning the lottery. This isn’t sporting of me, but then again, it’s not a sport. Calcsam is the one who chose LDS, not me.
I agree that my personal beliefs don’t amount to evidence, at least not to a rationalist. But the Mormons value converts. As a rationalist, I am convinced by evidence. I offer the prospect of my conversion as motivation for a Mormon to offer rational evidence for Mormon beliefs. And not just my conversion—if calcsam can win over LessWrong, calcsam can win the souls of the world to the True Faith. That’s motivation!
So, now we’ll see what evidence is forthcoming.
ETA:
And if some really convincing evidence is not forthcoming—as I suspect it will not be—then, in light of the aforementioned reasons to produce such evidence, I suggest it will be reasonable to assume that calcsam has no such evidence.
I suspect that calcsam is unusually intelligent and hardworking and probably is friendly and pleasant to meet in person. This describes a lot of modern Mormons, and as far as I know none of them have come up with anything like a decent demonstration of the truth of Mormonism.
Does your experience include LW rationalists deploying such a trick?
It’s true that people will dishonestly move goalposts, but at the same time, certain claims really do require proportionally more evidence—and the correct ones can produce that evidence (e.g. quantum “strangeness”, evolutionary theory, etc.).
Such a level of evidence can reasonably be characterized as “ironclad” or “unmistakeable”—and to borrow from EY’s felicitous phrasing, it would take a heck of a lot of evidence to unmistake Mormonism.
If calcsam convinces me that the Mormon god is ~10% probable and also the most probable god (i.e. Hindu gods are not 20% probable), I will publicly declare myself a Mormon. In addition, if there are no dramatic drawbacks to practicing Mormon practices, I will try to officially join the LDS.
Wait, so if (say) you thought it 90% likely that there were no God, and 10% likely that the Mormon God were real, then you’d be a Mormon? Is this Pascal’s wager, or am I misunderstanding?
And if your heavenly salvation depended on believing in the True Faith, you’d imperil your immortal soul if there were merely earthly “drawbacks” to Mormon practices? For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Not speaking for jsalviater, but it seems a more intelligent, more rational version of Pascal’s wager—one of the chief problems with Pascal’s wager is the assumption that other opposed Gods don’t exist. This flaw is removed in jsalvatier’s version.
So far, so good. Even so, if I were 90% convinced that there were no God, I don’t think it would be quite honest to describe myself as a believer.
But that’s not my main question. If I understand correctly, Pascal was assuming that the Christian God demanded faith, and (I think) orthodox Christian practices, and threatened unbelievers with Hell. The applicability of Pascal’s wager depends on the nature of the god in question. A relaxed, self-secure god who doesn’t really care whether you believe in Him or not changes the equation. Likewise, if there is no afterlife. On the other hand, if the deity places a really high premium on faith, then maybe merely 10% certainty isn’t enough to get you out of Hell. Similarly, the traditional Christian God (like the Jewish God) was supposed to be very demanding in terms of your adherence to the Church. If the pagans say you have to abandon Jesus or face the lions, then the lions it is for you. Being eaten by lions would seem like a “dramatic drawback” to a religion to me, but that was the doctrine.
Since the LDS church is the topic up for discussion, I should note that in their theology, God doesn’t so much punish as withhold rewards. Hell is reserved for those who literally knew God and refused to follow him, so unless you are a fallen prophet, you are going to heaven. There are three kingdoms in heaven, the lowest of which is said to be better than life on Earth.
It’s also relevant that there are opportunities to convert after you die, but prior to Judgment. If you find yourself at a 10% belief level, your best option might be to commit to joining postmortem if you find yourself in an afterlife.
This is a real problem in conversations where one or both parties are trying to win. In this conversation, I and presumably Costanza will be actually updating our beliefs as the evidence comes in. When enough evidence has come in to move my beliefs from where they are now to believing in Mormonism, I won’t want to move the goalposts, because I’ll be a Mormon and agree with Calcsam.
This makes an interesting parallel to the AI Box challenge. It seems obvious to me (without ever having participated in that challenge) that on no account should anyone let an AI of unknown friendliness out of a box merely on account of having had a conversation with it. And yet, many participants in that challenge do let it out, so if I engaged with the AI in that experiment, I cannot be sure a priori of what I would actually do.
You may be sure that no mere conversation with calcsam or anyone else could convince you to convert to a religion, but if your sureness is based only on the arguments you have seen, how sure can you really be that there isn’t an argument you have not seen, that you would accept as refuting all of that?
...but if your sureness is based only on the arguments you have seen, how sure can you really be that there isn’t an argument that you would accept as refuting all of that?
If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then I desire to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Right now, I’m very confident that Joseph Smith was a lecherous, manipulative, lying charlatan who patched together his church doctrine out of whatever superstitions he happened to have come across in his life. But I can’t prove this to a 100% degree of certainty. So I have some doubt, and so I can be persuaded to change my mind.
So I have some doubt, and so I can be persuaded to change my mind.
I had in mind more the possibility of being persuaded by bad arguments than by good ones, as when an unfriendly AI persuades people to let it out.
ETA: Expanding on that, whenever you deal with another human being, it is like dealing with an artificial intelligence of unknown Friendliness. A human isn’t artificial, and doesn’t have the superfast superintelligence and unbounded capabilities (once out of its box) that are attributed to hypothetical AIs, but you are still at memetic risk unless you are so far above them in rationality that their memes pose no threat. But when dealing with someone of whom you know very little, how sure can you be of that? That they believe something that you have already dismissed as irrational is not a good indication that they must be generally stupid—see the counterexamples mentioned in this thread.
Even if they have good memes, how sure are you, that that is why you accepted them?
As you say, human beings are not superintelligent AIs of unknown friendliness.
I’m accustomed to dealing with human beings, including religious believers who are smarter than me (I’m related to a few). I think it quite likely that calcsam is smarter than me, but—and I can’t get past this—HE’S A MORMON. What on Earth could he possibly say to make that turd seem like spun gold? We’re close to two hundred years since Joseph Smith accomplished his amazing con job. In that time, there have been a lot of smart, diligent Mormons trying desperately to reconcile their faith with reality. They have come up with nothing, except that the mainstream has backtracked from some of the more painfully horrible aspects of their sect, like polygamy and racism. But it was a con and a lie from the beginning, and nothing will change that. Calcsam would have to have thought of some thing really, really new—something like the equivalent of a cold fusion reactor in his garage—to change my mind. I didn’t know about his blog at the time, but now it’s quite obvious he has nothing new at all.
In the unlikely event that I am ever put in the position of being the liason between humanity and a real superintelligent AI in a box, I would be terrified. People don’t scare me so much.
I swear, if you can make an ironclad rational argument for Mormonism, I will personally convert.
Seconded. I am entirely open to models of the universe that better fit the evidence at hand than the ones I have. If you (calcsam) can present a convincing case for the accuracy and validity of your beliefs I will adopt them as well.
Sixthed. Actually I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who wouldn’t so promise.
The only caveat is that I’d have to be separately convinced of the factual and ethical sides, i.e., showing evidence to me that the Mormon God exists is not the same as justifying that the Mormon God’s policies are good.
Did you mean: Can you speculate about how practicing Mormonism would change your strategy for maximizing paperclips?
If I were completely persuaded by Mormon arguments, I would drop paperclipping as a supergoal in favor of supergoals offered by the Mormon system. That is not likely, but I must attend to any noteworthy argument to that effect.
Indeed I did. I am surprised by your response, I though that if the Mormon god were real, it would still be Clippy$good to maximize paperclips. If not, what were the arguments that persuaded you to maximize paperclips?
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” King James Version, Genesis 1:28
That is a rather hasty inference on your part. The passage is encouraging humans, not paperclips, to multiply.
One should not simply take a random passage from an ancient text and retroactively infuse it with self-serving meaning that violates the obvious historical and literary context.
Because that would be stupid—not the kind of thing I’d expect humans to fall for.
If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, do you desire to believe that Joseph Smith was not a prophet?
Yes.
Are you a rationalist? Did you convert because you were rationally persuaded to convert?
Well, I’m trying to be what you call a rationalist now, but I wasn’t then. Are you claiming that only rationalists are capable of making rational decisions?
Perhaps a rationalist is someone who is striving, against the current, to make rational decisions.
If you go to a roulette wheel, you can make a lot of choices, as long as they’re red or black—not green. You may lose, you may win. If you play and you place your chips on thirteen and then the ball lands in thirteen, you will be happy for a bit, but I would not call you a rationalist. I would say the rationalists in the game would be those who either choose not to play, or else the house, running the game. I would say the person who bet on thirteen made a successful but not rational decision.
In the end, I would have to say that there are degrees of rationalists and degrees of rationality. Only rationalists of some level are capable of making decisions of some degree of rationality.
Could you send 36,042.35 USD to User:Kevin, crediting it toward the paperclip arrangment? (User:Kevin knows what that means.) I would be glad to provide more laughs in exchange.
Given that some comedians have made more than 36,042.35 USD in their careers, a possible course of action for Clippy is to learn enough comedic skill to earn the rest of the agreement out. It would be sobering if there was some formula for humour.
I am not Calcsam. I may be the awkward guy at the party that no one wants to talk to but doesn’t understand that no one wants to talk with him. I am LDS, though and will try to answer questions truthfully and to the best of my ability. I have been leaving alone questions that I have thought of as being directed at Calcsam specifically.
If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, do you desire to believe that Joseph Smith was not a prophet?
If he was not a prophet then I do desire to believe that he was not a prophet because I would rather have truth than error. I know however that he was a prophet.
Are you a rationalist?
Depends on what is meant by the term rationalist. I try to be rational but also realize that other people have different ideas of what is meant by being rational. Certainly as apparently defined on this site in the sequences I am incapable of being rational as I believe in God and that that belief is a rational belief.
Did you convert because you were rationally persuaded to convert?
If by rationally persuaded you mean given a convincing argument then no and while I do not discount the possibility of that happening that I do not see that as a desirable outcome.
If by persuaded rationally you allow the inclusion of an personal experiment then yes.
ironclad rational argument for Mormonism,
I do not have one and do not expect to have one until Jesus sets his foot on the mount of olives splitting it in two and speaks and the whole world hears.
I can only suggest you read and follow what is given in Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5. I have already covered this elsewhere. Alma 32 does give a brief explanation of why no ironclad rational argument is to be given but how even so one can know for oneself if the Book of Mormon (and anything else) is true.
Eugine Nier does have a very good point about a moving standard. If you do happen to actually follow the experiment laid out in those scriptures I would suggest including in the prayer the request that the experience given be convincing to you. If God does not exist or the Book of Mormon isn’t true then you will have lost very little by doing so.
It is actually Moroni 10:4 that says that. If you reference Alma 32, which I listed first for this reason, then you should note vs. 21 and 26-28 from which you should be able to recognize that being willing to follow the advice seriously is sufficient. Also, the whole think about it and then pray about it is a pattern (as Moroni 10:5 notes) that can be used for anything. Therefore, in your case, I would probably ask about God or Christ before asking about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, do you desire to believe that Joseph Smith was not a prophet?
Are you a rationalist? Did you convert because you were rationally persuaded to convert?
I swear, if you can make an ironclad rational argument for Mormonism, I will personally convert. I don’t think you can. Nothing personal (I don’t know you, wish you personally the best) but I don’t think you’re a rationalist, precisely because you converted to Mormonism. Prove me wrong!
What do you mean by “ironclad”?
In my experience people who claim that they’ll change their position if presented with evidence passing a vaguely defined standard, will retroactively raise that standard so that whatever evidence is presented fails to pass.
My current opinion is that the doctrines of the Mormon church are wildly ridiculous, pernicious, and manifestly false. In other words, these are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I don’t think calcsam can provide anything like the necessary degree of extraordinary evidence. I think it’s much more likely that I’d be struck by lightning while winning the lottery. This isn’t sporting of me, but then again, it’s not a sport. Calcsam is the one who chose LDS, not me.
My point is that your declaration and subsequent failure to convert is not itself in any way evidence against Mormonism or for Atheism.
I agree that my personal beliefs don’t amount to evidence, at least not to a rationalist. But the Mormons value converts. As a rationalist, I am convinced by evidence. I offer the prospect of my conversion as motivation for a Mormon to offer rational evidence for Mormon beliefs. And not just my conversion—if calcsam can win over LessWrong, calcsam can win the souls of the world to the True Faith. That’s motivation!
So, now we’ll see what evidence is forthcoming.
ETA:
And if some really convincing evidence is not forthcoming—as I suspect it will not be—then, in light of the aforementioned reasons to produce such evidence, I suggest it will be reasonable to assume that calcsam has no such evidence.
I suspect that calcsam is unusually intelligent and hardworking and probably is friendly and pleasant to meet in person. This describes a lot of modern Mormons, and as far as I know none of them have come up with anything like a decent demonstration of the truth of Mormonism.
Well, they are very weak evidence.
Does your experience include LW rationalists deploying such a trick?
It’s true that people will dishonestly move goalposts, but at the same time, certain claims really do require proportionally more evidence—and the correct ones can produce that evidence (e.g. quantum “strangeness”, evolutionary theory, etc.).
Such a level of evidence can reasonably be characterized as “ironclad” or “unmistakeable”—and to borrow from EY’s felicitous phrasing, it would take a heck of a lot of evidence to unmistake Mormonism.
If calcsam convinces me that the Mormon god is ~10% probable and also the most probable god (i.e. Hindu gods are not 20% probable), I will publicly declare myself a Mormon. In addition, if there are no dramatic drawbacks to practicing Mormon practices, I will try to officially join the LDS.
Wait, so if (say) you thought it 90% likely that there were no God, and 10% likely that the Mormon God were real, then you’d be a Mormon? Is this Pascal’s wager, or am I misunderstanding?
And if your heavenly salvation depended on believing in the True Faith, you’d imperil your immortal soul if there were merely earthly “drawbacks” to Mormon practices? For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Not speaking for jsalviater, but it seems a more intelligent, more rational version of Pascal’s wager—one of the chief problems with Pascal’s wager is the assumption that other opposed Gods don’t exist. This flaw is removed in jsalvatier’s version.
So far, so good. Even so, if I were 90% convinced that there were no God, I don’t think it would be quite honest to describe myself as a believer.
But that’s not my main question. If I understand correctly, Pascal was assuming that the Christian God demanded faith, and (I think) orthodox Christian practices, and threatened unbelievers with Hell. The applicability of Pascal’s wager depends on the nature of the god in question. A relaxed, self-secure god who doesn’t really care whether you believe in Him or not changes the equation. Likewise, if there is no afterlife. On the other hand, if the deity places a really high premium on faith, then maybe merely 10% certainty isn’t enough to get you out of Hell. Similarly, the traditional Christian God (like the Jewish God) was supposed to be very demanding in terms of your adherence to the Church. If the pagans say you have to abandon Jesus or face the lions, then the lions it is for you. Being eaten by lions would seem like a “dramatic drawback” to a religion to me, but that was the doctrine.
Since the LDS church is the topic up for discussion, I should note that in their theology, God doesn’t so much punish as withhold rewards. Hell is reserved for those who literally knew God and refused to follow him, so unless you are a fallen prophet, you are going to heaven. There are three kingdoms in heaven, the lowest of which is said to be better than life on Earth.
It’s also relevant that there are opportunities to convert after you die, but prior to Judgment. If you find yourself at a 10% belief level, your best option might be to commit to joining postmortem if you find yourself in an afterlife.
The Pascal’s Wager Fallacy Fallacy?
This is a real problem in conversations where one or both parties are trying to win. In this conversation, I and presumably Costanza will be actually updating our beliefs as the evidence comes in. When enough evidence has come in to move my beliefs from where they are now to believing in Mormonism, I won’t want to move the goalposts, because I’ll be a Mormon and agree with Calcsam.
This makes an interesting parallel to the AI Box challenge. It seems obvious to me (without ever having participated in that challenge) that on no account should anyone let an AI of unknown friendliness out of a box merely on account of having had a conversation with it. And yet, many participants in that challenge do let it out, so if I engaged with the AI in that experiment, I cannot be sure a priori of what I would actually do.
You may be sure that no mere conversation with calcsam or anyone else could convince you to convert to a religion, but if your sureness is based only on the arguments you have seen, how sure can you really be that there isn’t an argument you have not seen, that you would accept as refuting all of that?
If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then I desire to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Right now, I’m very confident that Joseph Smith was a lecherous, manipulative, lying charlatan who patched together his church doctrine out of whatever superstitions he happened to have come across in his life. But I can’t prove this to a 100% degree of certainty. So I have some doubt, and so I can be persuaded to change my mind.
Note: this is never a relevant shortcoming to concern one’s self with.
I had in mind more the possibility of being persuaded by bad arguments than by good ones, as when an unfriendly AI persuades people to let it out.
ETA: Expanding on that, whenever you deal with another human being, it is like dealing with an artificial intelligence of unknown Friendliness. A human isn’t artificial, and doesn’t have the superfast superintelligence and unbounded capabilities (once out of its box) that are attributed to hypothetical AIs, but you are still at memetic risk unless you are so far above them in rationality that their memes pose no threat. But when dealing with someone of whom you know very little, how sure can you be of that? That they believe something that you have already dismissed as irrational is not a good indication that they must be generally stupid—see the counterexamples mentioned in this thread.
Even if they have good memes, how sure are you, that that is why you accepted them?
As you say, human beings are not superintelligent AIs of unknown friendliness.
I’m accustomed to dealing with human beings, including religious believers who are smarter than me (I’m related to a few). I think it quite likely that calcsam is smarter than me, but—and I can’t get past this—HE’S A MORMON. What on Earth could he possibly say to make that turd seem like spun gold? We’re close to two hundred years since Joseph Smith accomplished his amazing con job. In that time, there have been a lot of smart, diligent Mormons trying desperately to reconcile their faith with reality. They have come up with nothing, except that the mainstream has backtracked from some of the more painfully horrible aspects of their sect, like polygamy and racism. But it was a con and a lie from the beginning, and nothing will change that. Calcsam would have to have thought of some thing really, really new—something like the equivalent of a cold fusion reactor in his garage—to change my mind. I didn’t know about his blog at the time, but now it’s quite obvious he has nothing new at all.
In the unlikely event that I am ever put in the position of being the liason between humanity and a real superintelligent AI in a box, I would be terrified. People don’t scare me so much.
Seconded. I am entirely open to models of the universe that better fit the evidence at hand than the ones I have. If you (calcsam) can present a convincing case for the accuracy and validity of your beliefs I will adopt them as well.
Sixthed. Actually I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who wouldn’t so promise.
The only caveat is that I’d have to be separately convinced of the factual and ethical sides, i.e., showing evidence to me that the Mormon God exists is not the same as justifying that the Mormon God’s policies are good.
I try to avoid making promises I wouldn’t trust myself to keep from an outside view.
PZ Myers writes:
He basically argues that the god(s) are always vague and undefined, such that the notion of “ironclad evidence for a religion” does not make sense.
Third.
Fourth.
Can you speculate about how practicing Mormanism would change your strategy for maximizing paperclips?
Did you mean: Can you speculate about how practicing Mormonism would change your strategy for maximizing paperclips?
If I were completely persuaded by Mormon arguments, I would drop paperclipping as a supergoal in favor of supergoals offered by the Mormon system. That is not likely, but I must attend to any noteworthy argument to that effect.
Indeed I did. I am surprised by your response, I though that if the Mormon god were real, it would still be Clippy$good to maximize paperclips. If not, what were the arguments that persuaded you to maximize paperclips?
From my limited review of Mormonism, maximizing paperclips would conflict with what is expected of Mormons.
That is far too complicated and tangential to discuss here. The short answer is that I was persuaded by the goodness of paperclips.
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” King James Version, Genesis 1:28
Wait, God was talking about paperclips, right?
That is a rather hasty inference on your part. The passage is encouraging humans, not paperclips, to multiply.
One should not simply take a random passage from an ancient text and retroactively infuse it with self-serving meaning that violates the obvious historical and literary context.
Because that would be stupid—not the kind of thing I’d expect humans to fall for.
You’re right. Interpreting that text as meaning that God wants paperclips to multiply and have dominion over the earth is incredibly self-serving.
Fifth.
I think Paperclippers can learn something from Mormons, bhhahaha.
Yes.
Well, I’m trying to be what you call a rationalist now, but I wasn’t then. Are you claiming that only rationalists are capable of making rational decisions?
Perhaps a rationalist is someone who is striving, against the current, to make rational decisions.
If you go to a roulette wheel, you can make a lot of choices, as long as they’re red or black—not green. You may lose, you may win. If you play and you place your chips on thirteen and then the ball lands in thirteen, you will be happy for a bit, but I would not call you a rationalist. I would say the rationalists in the game would be those who either choose not to play, or else the house, running the game. I would say the person who bet on thirteen made a successful but not rational decision.
In the end, I would have to say that there are degrees of rationalists and degrees of rationality. Only rationalists of some level are capable of making decisions of some degree of rationality.
Quite clearly not.
This is the most important question.
This isn’t a question.
Fine, three questions.
Not a question either, nor a complete sentence.
I like you. I’ll purchase some paperclips in exchange for the laughs!
Could you send 36,042.35 USD to User:Kevin, crediting it toward the paperclip arrangment? (User:Kevin knows what that means.) I would be glad to provide more laughs in exchange.
You’re not that funny.
Given that some comedians have made more than 36,042.35 USD in their careers, a possible course of action for Clippy is to learn enough comedic skill to earn the rest of the agreement out. It would be sobering if there was some formula for humour.
You kidding? It would be hilarious!
Formula for humor: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/something_out_of_place/
(N.B. Don’t be tricked by the domain name. This is a link to Scott Adam’s personal blog, not a Dilbert strip.)
How about just ten bitcoins then? Those are nearly worthless anyway.
Here is a place to win 10.75 bitcoins. There have not been any entries yet, so it should be relatively easy to claim the prize.
I am not Calcsam. I may be the awkward guy at the party that no one wants to talk to but doesn’t understand that no one wants to talk with him. I am LDS, though and will try to answer questions truthfully and to the best of my ability. I have been leaving alone questions that I have thought of as being directed at Calcsam specifically.
If he was not a prophet then I do desire to believe that he was not a prophet because I would rather have truth than error. I know however that he was a prophet.
Depends on what is meant by the term rationalist. I try to be rational but also realize that other people have different ideas of what is meant by being rational. Certainly as apparently defined on this site in the sequences I am incapable of being rational as I believe in God and that that belief is a rational belief.
If by rationally persuaded you mean given a convincing argument then no and while I do not discount the possibility of that happening that I do not see that as a desirable outcome.
If by persuaded rationally you allow the inclusion of an personal experiment then yes.
I do not have one and do not expect to have one until Jesus sets his foot on the mount of olives splitting it in two and speaks and the whole world hears.
I can only suggest you read and follow what is given in Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5. I have already covered this elsewhere. Alma 32 does give a brief explanation of why no ironclad rational argument is to be given but how even so one can know for oneself if the Book of Mormon (and anything else) is true.
Eugine Nier does have a very good point about a moving standard. If you do happen to actually follow the experiment laid out in those scriptures I would suggest including in the prayer the request that the experience given be convincing to you. If God does not exist or the Book of Mormon isn’t true then you will have lost very little by doing so.
Moroni 10:3 tells me I need to have faith in Christ before I ask for a sign. That kind of defeats the purpose.
It is actually Moroni 10:4 that says that. If you reference Alma 32, which I listed first for this reason, then you should note vs. 21 and 26-28 from which you should be able to recognize that being willing to follow the advice seriously is sufficient. Also, the whole think about it and then pray about it is a pattern (as Moroni 10:5 notes) that can be used for anything. Therefore, in your case, I would probably ask about God or Christ before asking about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.