Originally posted by dottewell
Tsunamis, etc.

I thought that was an earthquake under the sea?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I thought that was an earthquake under the sea?

I think the point was that God did not stop it (and thus effectively is responsible). So if he is "doing his stuff" then why didn't he do it that time. Why does he appear to only "do his stuff" in a way that is indistinguishable from random chance? If you say it is distinguishable then that conflicts with your earlier claims that there is no scientific evidence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In relation to God experience is very important. In Christian thought there is the concept of a dead faith as opposed to spirit filled. In dead faith Christians talk endlessly about the "presence" of God and his "life changing love" and sing dull hymns to this effect but sweet FA happens. In spirit filled faith Jesus's words " If a man believes in me I seeing a live match. There's a realness and rawness to it. Emotional participation etc.

That just doesn't even remotely address my concerns. Do you want me to start quoting you? You've essentially stated here and elsewhere that this experiential knowledge you talk about is the only "real" knowledge; and that "factual knowledge", "scientific knowledge", "intellectual knowledge" (I'm using these terms because they are all terms you have directly used) somehow do not constitute "real" knowledge. I have asked you to clarify what you mean by this.

Look, if all you're really trying to say is that your life has been enriched by some set of fuzzy, unmediated, hard-to-conceptually-describe experiences that you attribute to the divine; and that I am not in a position to comment on those because I haven't experienced such things; then I'm not really sure I care about that one lick. I would, just as before, ask you to present a model of warranted theistic belief that is based on these fuzzy experiences you've purportedly shared with God.

Originally posted by LemonJello
That just doesn't even remotely address my concerns. Do you want me to start quoting you? You've essentially stated here and elsewhere that this experiential knowledge you talk about is the only "real" knowledge; and that "factual knowledge", "scientific knowledge", "intellectual knowledge" (I'm using these terms because they are all terms you have dire ...[text shortened]... ef that is based on these fuzzy experiences you've purportedly shared with God.

about is the only "real" knowledge; and that "factual knowledge", "scientific knowledge", "intellectual knowledge" (I'm using these terms because they are all terms you have directly used) somehow do not constitute "real" knowledge. I have asked you to clarify what you mean by this. LEMON

I suppose by real knowledge I mean knowledge that is alive and dynamic and experienced. A scientific fact about momentum in a text book is a very different kind of knowledge from an experiential knowledge of momentum. If you crash your car you experience momentum and get to know it in a real way. Momentum then has a very different menaing for you. It becomes real and when you next read about it in a text book it jumps off the page.

So if one has intellectual knowledge that God loves you but is unable to experience it then it's not a dynamic and real experience. The major point about this is that (in Spirituality) experiences are often much more powerful and life changing than intellectual information.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I suppose by real knowledge I mean knowledge that is alive and dynamic and experienced.

Is it fair to say that you're talking about experiential knowledge, or lived experience, if indeed these things are one and the same?

Surely all it takes to experience text-book knowledge is to put it into practice?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think the point was that God did not stop it (and thus effectively is responsible). So if he is "doing his stuff" then why didn't he do it that time. Why does he appear to only "do his stuff" in a way that is indistinguishable from random chance? If you say it is distinguishable then that conflicts with your earlier claims that there is no scientific evidence.

And where would he stop doing his stuff? Would HE stop at earthquakes or carry on interfering until every possible bad thing was irradicated , but then the world would look radically different. Infact the universe would be redeemed and it would be the end of life as we know it. The stuff I'm on about is the little things like a man giving up drugs or a healed relationship. A woman's cancer goes into remission after prayer. A man forgives someone who has hurt him deeply. Someone posts a cheque to a church fund that just happens to be the right amount to pay the bill etc etc. Little miracles are happening all around us. We just don't see them.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is it fair to say that you're talking about experiential knowledge, or lived experience, if indeed these things are one and the same?

Surely all it takes to experience text-book knowledge is to put it into practice?

Yes , but until one does that the knowledge is incomplete. If all one was ever able to know was intellectually that God existed then there would be a gaping hole in the whole thing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The major point about this is that (in Spirituality) experiences are often much more powerful and life changing than intellectual information.

Well, my getting hit by a bus would surely be life changing. That doesn't mean I have ever been hit by a bus; and that doesn't mean that I would be justified in going around attributing just any old changes in my life to the experience of being hit by a bus. Likewise, we might reasonably expect that experiencing some divine supernatural being would be life-changing as well. That doesn't mean that anyone has ever experienced it, and it doesn't mean that one is justified in going around attributing just any old changes in his life to experience of the divine. So, I wonder just why you think you're justified in attributing changes in your life to your communing with God, particularly when there are no good reasons to think your God exists. And this is the same problem with your other thread, where you even framed it such that (or, I think, at least tried to frame it such that) the epistemic environment for theistic belief in your God was destitute.

Originally posted by knightmeister
A woman's cancer goes into remission after prayer.

So that's god's work, but a tsunami is not.

How do we judge if something is god's work or not?

Does it depend on the degree of fit with your view of god?

Originally posted by knightmeister
And where would he stop doing his stuff? Would HE stop at earthquakes or carry on interfering until every possible bad thing was irradicated , but then the world would look radically different. Infact the universe would be redeemed and it would be the end of life as we know it.

I don't see why not. Or does he actually want all that bad stuff? Are you implying that an unredeemed world is better? As usual, you stop short of what you actually want to say making me think you don't actually believe what you are trying to say.

The stuff I'm on about is the little things like a man giving up drugs or a healed relationship. A woman's cancer goes into remission after prayer. A man forgives someone who has hurt him deeply. Someone posts a cheque to a church fund that just happens to be the right amount to pay the bill etc etc. Little miracles are happening all around us. We just don't see them.
But you just claimed you did see them. Make up your mind. And do these "Little miracles" differ in any way from coincidences that are predicted by random chance? What about all the bad things happening all around? Are those the work of the devil?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, my getting hit by a bus would surely be life changing. That doesn't mean I have ever been hit by a bus; and that doesn't mean that I would be justified in going around attributing just any old changes in my life to the experience of being hit by a bus. Likewise, we might reasonably expect that experiencing some divine supernatural being would be l ...[text shortened]... rame it such that) the epistemic environment for theistic belief in your God was destitute.

Slow down . Me thinks you think I am trying to say something far more complicated than I am. If you were hit by a bus my guess is you would learn something from it you never could from a book.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Slow down . Me thinks you think I am trying to say something far more complicated than I am. If you were hit by a bus my guess is you would learn something from it you never could from a book.

If you were hit by a bus my guess is you would learn something from it you never could from a book.

That's not the issue. I thought I already stated more or less that we agree to some extent on that. What I'm doing here is trying to target your underlying assumptions. If you claim that you have experienced X and that those experiences have enriched your life, part of what makes that a coherent thought to yourself, what makes it consistent in your own mind, is the idea that X exists and that X exists in a way that can be so experienced. Despite whatever sap the theist can bring, it's still going to come down to considerations of the truth of theism based on the available evidence.

Basically, minimally here, I expect you to have some reasons why you think the changes that have occurred in your life are due to experiences of some agent you call God; as opposed to, say, due to your acting on God-less internal resolve and deliberations on what sort of life you intend to cultivate and what sort of things you value.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]If you were hit by a bus my guess is you would learn something from it you never could from a book.

That's not the issue. I thought I already stated more or less that we agree to some extent on that. What I'm doing here is trying to target your underlying assumptions. If you claim that you have experienced X and that those experiences have en deliberations on what sort of life you intend to cultivate and what sort of things you value.[/b]

Despite whatever sap the theist can bring, it's still going to come down to considerations of the truth of theism based on the available evidence.LEMON

I agree , but the experience is part of the evidence. Maybe one thing you don't realise about spirituality is that it's not just about having emotional highs or "mystical" highs , it's a whole way of thinking. One of the things I like about Budhhism is that it talks about enlightenment , which is a viewpoint if you like. Christianity is similar , once the light goes on it can't really be put out again. To me spiritual experience is not some disconnected wierd one off thing . it's much more integrated than that , it's a whole way of being.

Jesus said he would be alive and present with us. He said if we look for him we will find him. If a man looks and finds his experience matches what is promised what is he supposed to think? If he stumbles across a love so tender , so unconditionally accepting and intimate that he finds himself weeping from the depths of his soul what then?