Brother Daniel

The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is artificial.

Whatever is real, is real. No matter what we call it.

Any allegedly historical event must be judged with respect to the frequency of similar events in our experience -- especially our scientific experience.

This rule is implicitly acknowledged by Christian apologists when they make arguments of the form "hallucinations are individual, not shared", and "people wouldn't die for a lie". (Infidels, calm down! The problems with these specific arguments are irrelevant to my present point.) Then, all too often, the rule is conveniently dropped.

The word "supernatural", used to describe an alleged event, is nothing but a rhetorical trick to make you forget the rule for a moment, and thereby to inflate the credibility of the claim in question.

Probably the best definition of "supernatural" would be "exempt from the rules of rational enquiry".

So you can see why complaints about "bias against the supernatural" are silly: One might as well complain about "bias against bullshit".

Riverwind

Yeah, from an atheistic viewpoint this makes total sense. Why would anyone assert that anything totally out of the realm of human experience as I have experienced it even consider "the supernatural".

Well, if one believes in God, one may easily and reasonably believe that God can intervene in history in a way that we tend to call "supernatural".

No God? No supernatural.

God? Supernatural.

Easy.

aa5874

The evidence you have cited is very weak, in light of interpolations and forgeries which were prevalent and the fact that references to 'Jesus' in Josephus appear to have been interpolated.

Brother Daniel

The question isn't whether God can intervene in history in a way that we tend to call "supernatural". Rather, the question is whether any such alleged intervention should ever be taken seriously as a hypothesis to compete against the obvious alternatives.

And the answer is that you have to forget or push aside everything you ever knew about probability in order to give serious consideration to a "supernatural" hypothesis.
Please note that the argument outlined in my previous post does not, in any way, make use of an assumption that there is no God.

Riverwind

If God exists, then why wouldn't you take such "supernatural" intervention seriously? Again, if God exists, then if you didn't take such intervention into account, you'd be getting your history wrong, wouldn't you?

What does anyone really know? Humans are constantly making discoveries of things never known before...

It must.

Sauron

By the numbers:

1. Muslims have personal experience that says Muhammad is the emissary of God and that Jesus is only a prophet. The Quran is the revealed word of God, and the Bible (OT and NT) are man-made corruptions.
2. MILLIONS of Muslims have this same experience.
3. That contradicts Christianity.

Now resolve that with your previous statements. Use both sides of the paper if necessary. When you're through, we can do the same thing with:

christians vs christians;
buddhists vs. christians;

etc.

Sauron

Oh, I don't know...........maybe by answering some of the questions?

You claimed that existentialism was important to your point of view.
I can't see how it helps.
Are you planning on telling anyone here?
Or was the reference to existentialism just a stalling tactic?

1. In the first place, you and I have only been interacting for less than a month, and on just a few threads. So you're in a poor position to comment on whether I have ever rethought anything, or given any ground.

2. Secondly, you've given me nothing to make me reconsider: every time I ask you a question, you stall or dodge. Aren't you a little old to be playing "Guess my secret"?

Not at all. I just have a very low tolerance for people who evade direct questions by handwaves and references to philosophy.

My experience in debating these matters (15 years or so now) is that such people aren't seriously interested in the discussion, only in evangelism. It's entirely one-way communication on their part. If the audience is willing to sit and be lectured by them, then they stick around and can be quite prolific in posting. But if the audience pushes back and starts to ask difficult questions, suddenly these people start checking their wristwatches and complain that their opinions aren't being taken seriously. It's the old christian faux persecution canard: they seem to think that if their opinions are challenged or questioned, to them it equates to being censored or ignored.

Nonsense.

1. I already know your point of view.
2. You appealed to existentialism.
3. I told you that I already knew about existentialism, and I couldn't see any way that it helped your argument.
4. Instead of telling me how you think it does help you, we see you dodging the question again.

You're leaving because of the questions, not because of any alleged stubbornness on my part, Riverwind. Those are the facts.

Sauron

Are you prepared to give us the metric by which we can judge your experience to be valid, yet reject other supernatural experiences?

I.e., on what basis do we:

(a) accept your unprovable claims, while
(b) rejecting those of other religions? Or those of UFO abductees?


And again: why doesn't this apply to any other supernatural being?

And if we have to accept the possibilty of your God acting in history in a supernatural manner, how can we rule out other claims of supernatural events in history?

This question has now been asked three times. Your silence on it is deafening.

judge

Can you give some details of such a person?


Really? Do you know any personally that have had this. I do personally know some but none have had this experience.


Do you know of any buddhists who have had experiences contrary to Christ?

I know quite a lot and am familiar with thier experiences. I also have myself experience with Buddhism.

You still have not provided any details , only assertions.

What is your own personal knowledge about these matters?

Sauron

Are you kidding? Millions of Muslims claim to have had personal experiences with Allah, who has revealed his Messenger to them. In fact, the usual comment I have heard is that "the words of the Prophet burned within us as we read them."

As soon as you get through the muslims, we can talk about the other religions. I already know better than to let you open up more than one tangent at a time.

I don't need personal knowledge about these matters. I am not the one claiming to have personally experienced these events. All I need to do is hear what these muslims have said, and repeat it back. Or, if you had any initiative, you could Google it yourself.