Absolute experience

Originally posted by Starrman
I find it dismaying that anyone is yet to address the original post with an example 🙁

My playwright analogy was an attempt to show that since we live in a natural world, there is no way an experience could have absolutely no “natural” explanation. IMO such a claim is untenable. The physical world (with it’s built in laws) is the medium through which we interact. Any description is physical by default – there is no way to communicate it otherwise – it is always the elucidation of corporeal objects (they may be doing extraordinary things, but that in and of itself doesn’t infer a supernatural cause). Any objective inquiry (which assumes materialism a priori) would put it in natural terms no matter how incredible the phenomenon in question: Emotions? Hallucinations? Mental suggestion? Lunacy? Coincidence? The options are endless.

Originally posted by Halitose
My playwright analogy was an attempt to show that since we live in a natural world, there is no way an experience could have absolutely no “natural” explanation. IMO such a claim is untenable. The physical world (with it’s built in laws) is the medium through which we interact. Any description is physical by default – there is no way to communicate it other ...[text shortened]... tion: Emotions? Hallucinations? Mental suggestion? Lunacy? Coincidence? The options are endless.

Okay, but surely a natural claim is more likely than a supernatural claim as origin for the event? Thus why opt for the supernatural one?

Originally posted by Starrman
Okay, but surely a natural claim is more likely than a supernatural claim as origin for the event? Thus why opt for the supernatural one?

That avatar of yours gives me the chills. 🙂

Obviously, this is all very subjective, but I guess that would be the case for one such given event; but with enough repetition (and perhaps a personal epistemology inclined towards the divine) the odds start leaning towards the supernatural.

An answered prayer has a natural explanation. A complete stranger may just suddenly have had the urge to give you $100 when you were down to your last dime; you might just have bumped into a long lost child after years of disappearance; your antibodies were at the point of destroying the virus anyway. It's when this happens with an uncanny recurrence that I looks for an answer greater than myself.

Originally posted by Halitose
That avatar of yours gives me the chills. 🙂

Obviously, this is all very subjective, but I guess that would be the case for one such given event; but with enough repetition (and perhaps a personal epistemology inclined towards the divine) the odds start leaning towards the supernatural.

An answered prayer has a natural explanation. A complete stranger ...[text shortened]... 's when this happens with an uncanny recurrence that I looks for an answer greater than myself.

So it's a question of odds? God is in the coincidences perhaps?

Originally posted by bbarr
Normative evaluations of the beliefs and assertions of others are highly dependent on the content of the belief and the context of assertion. What reason is there for thinking that the same normative evaluative standards ought apply to each of the following claims?

1) I am experiencing joy.

2) I am experiencing joy brought about by brain state X.

3) ...[text shortened]... ill require providing evidence, not merely pointing out that people tend to grant claims like 1.

We need to distinguish between the process (or standards) of evaluation and the result of evaluation. My claim is about the former, not the latter.

So, in the case of (1), why do we end up believing the person? Because we have no reason to believe otherwise; i.e. that the person would be lying about his emotional state. Now, if the person were crying, we might doubt it - because we have evidence to the contrary.

Again, in the case of (2), we grant it because there is no (or little) evidence to contradict the person's account. Note - if we had good evidence to the contrary, the fact that the person is familiar with the brain would not necessarily weigh in his favour - we might judge that he is simply mistaken.

With (3), again, what convinces us not the believe the person is the evidence against his proposition. For instance, previous accounts or evidence provided for the existence of elves have proved to be hoaxes (I'm thinking of a particular B&W photograph that was taken by sisters - can't remember their names now); there might be logical or scientific objections to the existence of elves or the causing of happiness by elves; no reliable evidence of the existence of elves is known to the evaluator etc. The last of these objections is probably the weakest - because it concedes that the evaluator might be missing something. Of the arguments against the existence of elves, this "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence" argument would be the first one that would be challenged if, say, the evaluator has reason to believe that the person claiming his joy was caused by elves is known to be truthful, generally a good observer, not one to have hallucinations, is physically and mentally healthy otherwise etc.

Originally posted by Starrman
So it's a question of odds? God is in the coincidences perhaps?

It's a question of reasonable evidence that life is not just a randomly promulgated product of time and physical laws.

Originally posted by Halitose
It's a question of reasonable evidence that life is not just a randomly promulgated product of time and physical laws.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this statement 🙂

Originally posted by lucifershammer
We need to distinguish between the process (or standards) of evaluation and the result of evaluation. My claim is about the former, not the latter.

So, in the case of (1), why do we end up believing the person? Because we have no reason to believe otherwise; i.e. that the person would be lying about his emotional state. Now, if the pe ...[text shortened]... observer, not one to have hallucinations, is physically and mentally healthy otherwise etc.

Compare:

"I am happy because I believe God exists"
- This we can accept.

"I am happy because God exists"
- This is essentially an ontological claim.

"God is making me happy through giving me personal and intimate knowledge of him and his plan"
- This I cannot accept; the question is whether I can sensibly doubt it, and if so how?

Originally posted by Starrman
I can't tell you how much I disagree with this statement 🙂

This can hardly be called an objective subject. 🙂

Originally posted by Starrman
I find it dismaying that anyone is yet to address the original post with an example 🙁

Doubtful you will receive an answer, until such time as an universal standard of perception is determined. If Noah's Ark were found tomorrow and subsequently news and pictures of the same were broadcast throughout the world, that experience is considered subjective, as well. The biblical account is subjective, as far as its readers are concerned, and even sensational updates of the same fall under the 'subjective' category.

Surely, just as the Scripture tells us, we do not live in an age of miracles or prophecy. Some find its distance from our 'modern minds' so remote (in various categories) as to dismiss virtually all of its reports of supernatural activity. Others believe its entirety for no good reason. Still others research to the most minute details and come away with belief and intellectual integrity intact. The largest group, as it relates to believers, falls (in varying degrees) between groups two and three.

Some years ago, I purchased a home in southern California, in an upper-middle class development. This was my first home, and I had no idea about market trends or cycles. The purchase was made at the top of the market, and, circumstances being what they were, I was 'forced' to sell at the very nadir of the market a few years later.
One can imagine what the house is worth today. The value has increased from my selling price by a little more than five times. Nice.

If I could go back in time and talk to the idiot that I was, I would tell me not only to "not sell," but to "buy as many as you possibly can!" The difference, obviously, comes from my ability to see the trends, the signs, if you will. At that time, my circumstances and personal subjectivity overwhelmed any message of wisdom I may have received. Now, I see not only that all the signs of an eventual market turn were very evident, but that my objections didn't hold even a hint of water. The feast was being set for me, but I was so absorbed in my pity party I went beyond rejecting the food: I convinced myself it wasn't there.

In this age of historical trends, miracles and prophecy are suspended. There are miracles and prophecy behind us and some before us, at an undetermined time. However, in this stage of historical trends, we have everything we need to make a reasoned determination for faith.

At the Judgment Seat of Christ, there will be no hand-wringing regarding whether the person next to you is seeing what you are seeing. The hand-wringing will come first, at the sheer awe of His majesty, but also at some point, as a response to your self-reflection. You will think back to your life to determine whether or not this experience could have been predicted by anything from your personal experience. Your conscience will judge you before He does. Your conscience will rebuke you for ignoring the obvious 'signs,' not of prophecy and miracles, but of the Scripture's harmony with reality, and for the multiple times it was presented to you in various forms.

Originally posted by Halitose
The only way a playwright can appear in his own stage play is if he casts himself a role. Often in this drama of life, we are so fixated on our materialist presuppositions that we fail to see the Divine Hand moving through our midst -- the fantastic becomes mere coincidence.

Yes, with all the subtle things they do for us natural beings, the magical elvish do not get as much credit as they deserve.

Question: if we are counting naturally unexplained experiences as "proof" for the supernatural, are they proof for your God, or are they proof for my elves?

Originally posted by Halitose
It's a question of reasonable evidence that life is not just a randomly promulgated product of time and physical laws.

If you've got the time to peruse this, it may show you part of why I think you are wrong. And thank you to RC for formulating this quick summary, since I haven't had time to read through it:

'Look, these things are shockingly complex consequences of very simple rules operating on very simple objects, sometimes with an element of chance, many many times. Given this complexity, it is not even counterintuitive that more complicated rules, operating with a strong element of chance, over billions of years, should produce the occasional island of complexity, especially since complexity is a property that has as much to do with the observer as with the observed.'

http://cell-auto.com/

Originally posted by Starrman
Okay, but surely a natural claim is more likely than a supernatural claim as origin for the event? Thus why opt for the supernatural one?

Actually there can be no claim for either a natural or supernatural explanation as being "more likely" as odds are only valid if based on cirtain knowlege. If God is know to exist then the odds for a supernatural explanation are increased, if God is know not to exist then the odds for a natural explanation are increased. If the existance of God is unknown then how do you calculate your odds? Even worse the definition of supernatural in this case is vague as implied by Halitose, the supernatural may be merely a specific patern of natural events and thus confounds your "odds"


Originally posted by Halitose
It's when this happens with an uncanny recurrence that I looks for an answer greater than myself.
The problem here is that uncanny is such a vague term. It may seem uncanny when two people in a school class share the same birthday, but the odds are in favour of it. The workings of coincidence are much more complex than most people realise and the odds are in favour of more coincidence than we actually notice. The vast majority of coincidences that take place around us go unnoticed and those who look for them the most usually find more than those who dont look for them.
I find that most of the coincidences that I notice have nothing to do with good or bad or prayer or otherwise but are simple straight forward coincidences.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually there can be no claim for either a natural or supernatural explanation as being "more likely" as odds are only valid if based on cirtain knowlege. If God is know to exist then the odds for a supernatural explanation are increased, if God is know not to exist then the odds for a natural explanation are increased. If the existance of God is unknown ...[text shortened]... upernatural may be merely a specific patern of natural events and thus confounds your "odds"

I don't agree with this. If the event is natural, by definition it must be possible to re-create it naturally. This taken, the odds of it being so in any given occurence are extremely likely, especially considering no empirical evidence as available to support a supernatural explanation. Without this, the odds of god's intervention should be considered as 0 and therfore a natural cause would have a 1:1 chance.

What I'm saying (and I would point out that I'm talking from a weak atheistic point of view and all that entails as a standpoint) is that if god is an unkown, then he must for all intents and purposes be considered to have no likelyhood at all of causing such events.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm interested to hear from any Christians that care to share, on experiences they have had which could not, in any other possible way, be attributed to some other cause. Please think about what you are about to write, I'd like the relaying of these experiences to be as detailed as possible.

My response: OK. I know someone who was raised from the dead. This person was confirmed by doctors to be clinically brain dead for more than 24 hours. He related how his body left his soul and how he went to Heaven and saw God, and then he was taken down to hell...

Your response: He was never dead. He was hallucinating!

My response:

"Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. "