Absolute experience

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What's the example of the sledgehammer and the concrete? I presume it's something like "the concrete's all smashed up, therefore there must have been a sledgehammer".

As posted by Dragonfiend:

...trying to break up a pillar of concrete with a sledge hammer and the only time the stuff actually breaks is when I pray before the swing...

Originally posted by Starrman
Not really, although if any of you have had such expereinces I would like to hear them. I'm more intrigued by such cases as when someone says 'I spoke to god and he told me' or perhaps such things as the example of the sledgehammer and the concrete which appeared in another thread.

The difficulty in doing away with the supposed mundane aspects of God's interactions with man, the forest appears to slip away with the trees.

Certainly, we may have seeming proof of God's direct dealings, but even these can be explained away via the so-called natural methods (nature itself, ironically, being a construct of God. But I digress).

For instance, if it were discovered and revealed to the entire world audience irrefutable proof of the existence of Noah's Ark on the top of some mountain, couldn't the construction of the same be explained away via the normative means available at the time of construction ("Gopher wood, after all, was plentiful back then," or "Perhaps this was a archetype-temple, used as a vestibule for ancient worship and animal sacrifice," and etc.)?

If you are looking for voices or miracles, I doubt the search will yield much in the area of satisfaction, as neither are employed presently... at least, not by God!

Originally posted by Starrman
As posted by Dragonfiend:

...trying to break up a pillar of concrete with a sledge hammer and the only time the stuff actually breaks is when I pray before the swing...

Which thread is this gack from??? I must know right away so that I can post the most sarcastic response possible.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The difficulty in doing away with the supposed mundane aspects of God's interactions with man, the forest appears to slip away with the trees.

Certainly, we may have seeming proof of God's direct dealings, but even these can be explained away via the so-called natural methods (nature itself, ironically, being a construct of God. But I digress).

For ...[text shortened]... in the area of satisfaction, as neither are employed presently... at least, not by God!

I think you're making my point for me. In asking for such examples, I'm trying to ascertain if there is anything which cannot be shown to have otherwise been caused. If there is no such experience, how are the experiencees so sure that god is the cause?

In all reality I probably already know the answer to this; that faith is the defining factor and without it there is no seperating line between these experiences, had by either atheist or theist. But if you need to believe to have faith (eg: Nicholaas' continual requests for people to open their hearts and try god out) and if you cannot have faith without belief, is not the matter of god in the mind of man one of self-determinism? You cannot have god just open your heart for you, it must be open to him to enter, presupposing a belief in his existence?

Originally posted by Starrman
No, not at all. I'm not attempting to find the utterly indubitable, rather to highlight the dubitability of personal experience. I'm asking for a common sense aspect here, an experienceable event which could not be caused by some other common sense and accessible factor of everyday and natural existence.

The "dubitability of personal experience" is highly exaggerated when talking about religious experiences. After all, I do not see biologists who discover a new and rare species in the rainforest engage in self-doubt. Nor, for that matter, people at a supermarket.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The "dubitability of personal experience" is highly exaggerated when talking about religious experiences. After all, I do not see biologists who discover a new and rare species in the rainforest engage in self-doubt.

Which is why commons sense is the playing field here, though I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your example.

I'm asking if it is reasonable to conclude that god (a supernatural entity) is responsible or whether a common sense and natural cause is present.

Originally posted by Starrman
Which is why commons sense is the playing field here, though I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your example.

I'm asking if it is reasonable to conclude that god (a supernatural entity) is responsible or whether a common sense and natural cause is present.

My example is intended to point out that the normative state for us to evaluate each other's experiences is to believe them - not doubt them. If I tell you that I saw a red bus yesterday, you would normally believe me unless you had prior reason to think otherwise.

However, with religious experiences, I observe that this "common sense" way of looking at things is inverted.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm asking if it is reasonable to conclude that god (a supernatural entity) is responsible or whether a common sense and natural cause is present.

A single event, in itself, may not make it reasonable to conclude that God is responsible. A series of events (not necessarily all supernatural) might.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm asking if it is reasonable to conclude that god (a supernatural entity) is responsible or whether a common sense and natural cause is present.

A faithful Christian would sooner conclude that God is responsible for some event "A" before attributing the event to circumstance and/or coincidence (or whatever) as the atheist would. The probability of this increases exponentially if event "A" was an event asked for in prayer by the Christian. This seems completely natural to me.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
My example is intended to point out that the normative state for us to evaluate each other's experiences is to believe them - not doubt them. If I tell you that I saw a red bus yesterday, you would normally believe me [b]unless you had prior reason to think otherwise.[/b]

Yes. Likewise, if you tell me that you were ill, and then you prayed, and then you got well again (to take an example), I will believe you. It's when you draw the conclusion that the prayer caused you to get well that I will be sceptical.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
My example is intended to point out that the normative state for us to evaluate each other's experiences is to believe them - not doubt them. If I tell you that I saw a red bus yesterday, you would normally believe me [b]unless you had prior reason to think otherwise.

However, with religious experiences, I observe that this "common sense" way of looking at things is inverted.[/b]

Yes, but the reason is because I have no need to doubt you, the event is common place and supportable with demonstrable evidence. My acceptance of the bus event is due to a the likelyhood of it's occurence and the provability of it. The reason I would not instantly accept your account of some event invovling god is because none of this can be demonstrated.

Are you saying that the way of looking at things as inverted is acceptible because of the nature of the event? Can you justify this?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A single event, in itself, may not make it reasonable to conclude that God is responsible. A series of events (not necessarily all supernatural) might.

Only if the series of events reduced the dubitability of their occuring cause. If each subsequent event does not, then number is not a consideration in their proof.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Yes. Likewise, if you tell me that you were ill, and then you prayed, and then you got well again (to take an example), I will believe you. It's when you draw the conclusion that the prayer caused you to get well that I will be sceptical.

Why would you be skeptical?

Originally posted by Starrman
Yes, but the reason is because I have no need to doubt you, the event is common place and supportable with demonstrable evidence. My acceptance of the bus event is due to a the likelyhood of it's occurence and the provability of it. The reason I would not instantly accept your account of some event invovling god is because none of this can be demonstrated.

First, the event may be "common place" for me, but not for you. The likelihood of it's occurrence can vary widely depending on where one is. What's more, that will also affect your evaluation of the likelihood of something like that happening.

Second, what constitutes "demonstrable evidence"? If I told you that I saw a red bus yesterday, how can I provide demonstrable evidence that I did, in fact, see a red bus yesterday?

I didn't understand the second paragraph - could you restate the question, please?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why would you be skeptical?

Because it's something you haven't observed (you have only observed the prayer and the recovery, not the connection between them), and there are other possible causes. It's like when parents say that the vaccines made their children autistic, to take a non-spiritual example. The fact that two events coincide, or one of them happens right after the other one, doesn't tell us whether one of them caused the other one. It's just one possibility.