Volker.Doormann

I think neither the first definition nor the latter definition is matching my position. In agree with the latter concept on phenomena's in the physical world, and acknowledge the spiritual order as part of nature in the very same respect. But a private ethic idea from persons like Aristotle is not a natural phenomena in the universe, as gravity or electromagnetism. It is a belief system as all ideas and ism's (Agnostic, Communism, Atheism, Theism, Skeptic).

Volker

The AntiChris

Ok. I'll rephrase the question.

As scientists are inadequately qualified, who is qualified and what would be their criteria (or methodology?) for identifying 'true' supernatural events (as opposed to events which may have a naturalistic explanation)?

I know you're busy , but I'd be interested in your answer.

Chris

Christian

Rhea,

So your claim is that only parents can experience the greatest kinds of suffering. That anyone who is not a parent cannot validly claim to have suffered “the greatest kinds of suffering” no matter what else they might have experienced. Do I understand your claim correctly?

How does this support your assertion that Jesus suffering was trivial because He was never a parent? Have I misunderstood your original assertion? If so, please clarify what idea you are offering THING 1 as evidence of. Thanks.

I do realize that it is easier to subject yourself to pain if you know that a greater good will result, or that it serves a higher purpose somehow. I also realize that Jesus went into His mutilation, torture and slow death with that advantage.

My assertion is the mutilation, torture, and slow death still amounts to tremendous, horrible, and unthinkable pain and suffering no matter how noble the cause.

Maybe I did understand your initial assertion correctly, since this does support it.

If I follow you (please correct me if I get your argument wrong):

1 – The unanimous assertion of parents is that the death of a child is the worst suffering they have ever known.
2 – Therefore the death of a child really is the worst possible suffering in the world.
3 – Therefore it is impossible for a childless person to experience the worst suffering in the world.

Interesting. Doesn’t your conclusion trivialize the suffering of anyone who is not a parent, though? You gave the example previously of a young girl who was repeatedly raped on tape. The girl was too young to have been a parent, though. So by your own criteria she did not experience the worst type of suffering. She may have suffered some, but it certainly doesn’t meet your criteria for falling into the category of “the worst type of suffering.” Right?

I take it THING 3 is not meant to support your opening assertion?

If He had been a parent He would be open to the accusation “How could He have possible left out being childless, since that is a pain experienced by so many humans?” Etc, ad infinitum.

Again, I am not claiming that Jesus experienced every possible human condition. I’m claiming that the parts He chose to experience were some of the worst parts to be had.

By your own standard (THING 2) Bana is not an example of “the greatest kinds of suffering.” She never experienced the death of a child. Bana’s suffering is trivial by your stated standards, because she never experienced the one thing that would earn her the badge “greatest kinds of suffering.”

I respectfully submit that you have just destroyed your own THING 2 argument, which is the only support you have offered for your initial assertion.

Your apparent approach here is flawed in another way as well.

You seem to be claiming that Jesus did not experience “the greatest kinds of suffering” because you come up with examples of greater suffering. “Bana suffered more than Jesus did, therefore Jesus didn’t make the cut.”

But if we keep applying that approach, then nobody would ever make the cut.

For example, let’s say that Bana II had the exactly same experience, but she also watched her children tortured, raped, and slowly killed in front of her. Let’s further say that she was forcibly compelled to contribute to that event. Let’s crank up the time factor too … now the slave ship was lost at sea and she was chained there for an entire year and almost starved. Her death from infection now takes months, not weeks. Let’s add the horror of foreknowledge … every painful event she will experience is described to her in detail and the date given when she will have to endure it.

The amount of pain and suffering that Bana II went through is demonstrably greater than what Bana went through. So applying your logic, Bana doesn’t make the cut for truly great and horrible suffering because we can come up with an example of greater suffering (Bana II).

And we could apply the same technique to show that Bana II doesn’t make the cut. And the one after that. And the one after that. If we apply your approach consistently then the logical conclusion will be that nobody, real or imagined, has ever experienced the worst kinds of suffering.

Therefore, no example (real or imagined) of “the worst kinds of suffering” exists. We can always imagine something worse. The end result of your approach is to trivialize all suffering, actual or imagined.

Jesus didn’t even have it bad now? Torture and slow death by suffocation doesn’t even rise to the standard of being “bad” in your eyes? Does that mean that torture and execution equates to “having it good” by your standards? How can you look at yourself in the mirror and make such a claim.

No, He should have chosen Bana II.
No, He should have chosen Ingrid.
No, He should have chosen Joe Bob.
No, He should have chosen ……..

Respectfully,

Christian

Biff the unclean

What the Gospels say that Jesus was put through wasn't enough to kill a healthy young man. There was no way for him to suffocate in the Gospel stories. In the Gospel stories he is yapping away until he croaks. He even has three different sets of last wods. Pretty chatty for somebody who was suffocating. And to prove that it wasn't enough to kill him, after he is out cold for awhile he gets up and goes to his friends. They see the holes still in him.

If you changed the name of the lead character to Biff, moved it to the 21 century but kept everything else the same, would you say that Biff had died and come back to live? Or would you say that he had been misdiagnosed?

Say I just had a heart attack and was pronounced dead but some hours later got up and walked around; would you assume that I was supernatural? Or would you assume that someone had made a terrible mistake?

Christian

Rimstalker,

So there are things that are absolutely true, but we can only approximate about those things? Do you think it is possible for us to know that anything is absolutely true?

[quote]quote: If a naturalist were to say “my name is Bob” would he really only mean “I assume my name is Bob in the absence of any evidence to the contrary?” If not, then at what level do statements of fact cease to be intended as truth and become merely intended as a working assumption?
First off, "My name is bob" is a positive claim and is therefore NOT held to be accurate until evidence to the contrary is presented. Second off, anyone claiming to be named Bob probably has, at the very least, a driver's licence, a birth certificate, and a lifetime of experice being called Bob to attest to their name.

What is a “positive claim,” and why does “my name is Bob” qualify while “the supernatural does not exist” does not qualify? How do you form opinions about the truthfulness of a positive claim?

Interesting. That is a fundamentally different way of processing information than what I am familiar with.

Thanks.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Mike,

True enough.

I don’t think I would say “worthless.” Certainly reason to question and be skeptical, though.

Sure.

"When the Old Testament says that Sennacherib's invasion was stopped by angels (2 Ki 19:35-36), and Herodotus says it was stopped by a lot of mice who came and ate up all the bowstrings of his army (Herodotus, Bk II, Sect 141), an open-minded man will be on the side of the angels. Unless you start by begging the question there is nothing intrinsically unlikely in the existence of angels or in the action ascribed to them. But mice just don't do these things."

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Scumble,

You have to know what "natural" is to make such a claim. I'm the one who's arguing for a distinction between what is "natural" and what is "supernatural" among those things which are real.

Perhaps. My goal in conversation is to express myself in terms that the other person can understand. But the natural/supernatural thing seems to have a huge impact on how you process information in general. There are a lot of "reality" effects for your choice of viewpoint.

Respectfully,

Christian

mike_decock

The only value that anecdotal evidence has is to give cause for a methodically valid investigation. Anecdotal evidence on its own is worthless in determining whether or not the claim is true.

The error in that reasoning is that the truth is that either "mice" or "angels". There could be any number of reasons why why the invasion was stopped. Were there climactic conditions that lead to a large mouse population? Were ALL the bowstring eaten or just enough to stop the invasion? Were the archers poorly trained or had they been negligent in their maintenance?

It could be a combination of any number of factors.

Let's say you are the commander of the archers. You neglected your duties and you are at FAULT for the failure of your division. Such negligence would probably be cause for execution so you "blame it on the mice... yeah, that's the ticket".

The other problem with putting forth those kinds of arguments is that the respondent is put into a position where "I don't know" is viewed as an evasive answer. The truth is, "I don't know" is the most HONEST answer.

What happened? I DON'T KNOW. I wasn't there. We don't have CNN footage covering the event. Even if we did have CNN reporting on the event, I would still assume I only have a partial view of the truth of the event.

History is not a hard science. Every report is biased by the author reporting the event. The "truth" can only be determined with reasonable confidence if a large number of reporters cover the same event.

As such, I feel no need to have a firm belief in the historicity of any account. I don't feel like my immortal soul is at peril if I give the only honest and truthful answer: "I DON'T KNOW'. I am free to think whatever I want.

-Mike...

Biff the unclean

Christian, if you'll pick up Homer you will see a detailed account of the battle for Troy. The story tells how the Gods Zeus, Apollo, Athena and Hera influenced the outcome of the battle. Should we then believe that these Gods are real? If not why not, how do they differ from Angels?

Hail

There is the Darwin Theory which is mostly regarded as fact and other explanations which propose how things happen to be. It still doesn't seem to me that there is an explanation for how the phsycal existence happened that can be backed up by any observable model that science have or poposed to be able to get.
Since there is an observable linear relationship between things that come from other things ( cars from factory, painting from artist etc ) it would seem reasonable that the physical universe came from something functionally other than itself and reasonable that it may even be of a different nature from the physical universe.
I think that thinking based purely on physical observation amounts to thinking in the Physical universe box. I think that breaching the seperation between the realms is an intermediate goal of humankind. I think this will not be something that as far off in our future as some might think they would prefer. I think I have reason to believe it will be there by 2012.
That is how I see it