23 Feb 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerI was after personal experience, not experience by proxy. The mere fact that this is not first hand knowledge is enough to dismiss it from reasonability. If you had had that experience I would be willing to weigh the evidence for it.
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 An ...[text shortened]... Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. "[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
23 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanOK. Here is a guy's site. Would it really make a difference if he told you the story?
I was after personal experience, not experience by proxy. The mere fact that this is not first hand knowledge is enough to dismiss it from reasonability. If you had had that experience I would be willing to weigh the evidence for it.
I have the video tape where he relates the story first hand. I could mail it to you...
See for yourself:
http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/
23 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarrmanI was working a 6 month contract in Seattle. About 4 months into it I started looking for other work. I had applied at many places when I got a call from a head hunter who wanted to put my hat into the ring for a job in my home town. I said sure.
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.
That night, when I got home, my wife and I were so sure that I'd get that job that we started packing up. We had no reason to feel sure, but we were very sure about this one job. Now keep in mind that I had put in a number of resumes to a number of other jobs as well (at least one other was in my home town) and it was only this one that triggered us.
I did get the job (none of the others ever contacted me).
I learned later that the person that chose me didn't see my resume until 4 days after we started packing. That 6 month contract turned into 3.5 years.
What made us so sure of that particular job when I had so many other irons in the fire?
DF
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarrmanInto the Bayesian thread with you!
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 a ...[text shortened]... all intents and purposes be considered to have no likelyhood at all of causing such events.
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by royalchickenI don't even know what Bayesian interpretation means. If you explain it quickly I'll have a htink and maybe pop over to debates later, though I'm sure bbarr you and scribbles are quite adept at dealing with it anyway.
Very well then. Your last few posts in this thread have been spoken like a Bayesian, though.
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarrmanTypically, probabilities are assigned to events; the probability of an event happening is seen as being roughly the ratio of the number of times an event happens in a given set of circumstances to the number of times those circumstances are created, if we do it many, many times. For example, we might wish to determine the probability that a new thread on RHP will die after 38 posts. Under the above interpretation (called the 'frequentist' interpretation), we would estimate this probability by (the number of threads on RHP with 38 posts)/(the total number of posts on RHP).
I don't even know what Bayesian interpretation means. If you explain it quickly I'll have a htink and maybe pop over to debates later, though I'm sure bbarr you and scribbles are quite adept at dealing with it anyway.
An alternative interpretation is the Bayesian one, which claims that probabilities operate on statements, not events, and that the probability of a statement being true is a measure of the extent to which we believe that statement. Note that this contains the frequentist interpretation, since the event E can correspond to the statement 'E happens'. Furthermore, our degree of belief in 'E happens' is likely to be similar to the frequentist answer, because we intuitively apply frequentist reasoning when determining the probability of events.
In actual fact, probabilities have a rigorous mathematical definition independent of these interpretations. However, the interpretation is useful if we want to use the mathematics to model anything. In that thread, we're discussing a method for changing our assessment of a statement's truth in view of observed evidence.
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by royalchickenAhh, okay. I'll have a look through and see what I feel I can add... if anything.
Typically, probabilities are assigned to events; the probability of an event happening is seen as being roughly the ratio of the number of times an event happens in a given set of circumstances to the number of times those circumstances are created, if we do it many, many times. For example, we might wish to determine the probability that a new thread ...[text shortened]... method for changing our assessment of a statement's truth in view of observed evidence.
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarrmanA bit off subject here, but Starrmann, Where did you get that
I was after personal experience, not experience by proxy. The mere fact that this is not first hand knowledge is enough to dismiss it from reasonability. If you had had that experience I would be willing to weigh the evidence for it.
AWESOME avatar?