"Supernature" and the power of God

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

It seems that, most of the time, apologetics proper concerns itself with the realm of ideas, point and counterpoint. Talk of one's personal experiences concerning God's power is often excluded or relegated to the province of spiritual theology or debates about the gifts, charismatic renewal, etc. But, many times, believers have had powerful experiences of God's power or of the "supernatural" that have been instrumental in opening their eyes to the spiritual realities in ways that discoursing about ideas could never do. Indeed, the early church was significantly shaped by experience as well as by intellectual concerns and the developmental flow of ideas. Though it remains wise to rein in the potential dangers of unbridled or unexamined experiences, it is also beneficial to recount our personal experiences of "supernature," even as a viable apologetic.

So, does anyone have any experiences to share that have proved significant in leading them to faith or in corroborating the truth of spiritual realities?

[AtheistArchon]

- American Indians very often had supernatural experiences. In fact, it was a tenet of their system; a young warrior goes out into the wilderness with some special roots or mushrooms, and these plants "help them see" visions which are of course quite supernatural.

- Er, speaking for myself, I have had no such experiences. :smile:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 10:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
AtheistArchon:

- American Indians very often had supernatural experiences. In fact, it was a tenet of their system; a young warrior goes out into the wilderness with some special roots or mushrooms, and these plants "help them see" visions which are of course quite supernatural.

- Er, speaking for myself, I have had no such experiences. :smile:

You could always get yourself some of those "special roots!" But, of course, that wasn't exactly what I was after...

[mattbballman19]

My personal spiritual experienes could be said to be reduced to introspective intuition; a, sort of, unexplainable veridical conviction. Deep within my own consciousness, exist various allusive, but, in some mysterious way, concrete deity evidences which find their provenance in random, albeit sovereignly planned, personal/relgious experiences.

I remember walking alone in the front lawn of my church late at night, when no one was there, and in the midst of whatever it was I was contemplating, I would get this continuous sense of peace and calmness, which would be followed by an unquestionable/undeniable knowledge that God had a vested interest in particular events of my life.

It would not be for long. Maybe a few priceless seconds, but never over a minute for me, personally. These seconds had the mysterious ability to appear to my mind as segments of time vastly larger than that allowed by reality. They had a inkling of eternality inherent in their nature. My counsicousness was phenomenally invaded by these manifestations of deity blatancy.

I haven't had an angel visit my bedside. I've seen no light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, I've seen no tunnel! Nothing supernatural has ever obtained in front of my eyes. But, at the same time, every single second of everyday seems to possess some grander mysterious quality, which gives me a clue to the plan that I may be a part of. That I am a part of this thing called time. A time which tells a story, of which I am priviledged to be a part. I am increasingly more aware that this history participating in the realm of time is His-story, and that it's design will, one day, transport me to the presence of the author (and perfector) of that story.

Heaven.

matt

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Matt,
Thanks much for relating these experiences! I'd say that many of us have intuitions of God, his presence, and his love, and it is encouraging to hear such things and to talk about them.

BTW, do you live in Myrtle Beach? My family and I have been going there for years every summer, or at least to the surrounding beaches like Garden City or Surfside. We'll be there in July this year, most likely....

[WinAce]

Does attributing lots and lots of random coincidence and confirmation bias to paranormal beasties like gods count?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 05:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
WinAce:

Does attributing lots and lots of random coincidence and confirmation bias to paranormal beasties like gods count?

No---but, how very clever of you to reiterate these generalities....


Have you ever seen any "beasties?"

[WinAce]

Not any paranormal ones, no.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 10:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
WinAce:

Not any paranormal ones, no.

Any normal ones? ;)

[WinAce]

That depends on what the definition of "beastie" is.

[Gavin]

Dear Pereynol:


So, does anyone have any experiences to share that have proved significant in leading them to faith or in corroborating the truth of spiritual realities?

I have never experienced anything overtly miraculous in my life, to be honest. This may seem odd given my pointed theological conviction that the church needs to seek the spiritual power and wonders of God, but that may be because that theological stance has been a relatively recent change for me (the last year and half). Plus I do not attend a charismatic church regularly.

I am just beginning to seek greater intimacy with God with this renewed perspective on the miraculous in mind. I have been praying for the gift of tongues for a number of months now, and seeking the Lord in my own time to experience more overwhelming and awesome degrees of his power, presence, and holiness.

The times I have most overwhelmingly experienced God's power and majesty have been in times of corporate worship. The few encounters I have had with God in such circumstances have been brief and usually regarding conviction of sin. Such experiences have always had the effect of confirming and strengthening my love for and faith in God.

You might say that I am extremely zealous for spiritual and miraculous experiences, but a self-aknowledged novice in such areas.

In regards to:


It seems that, most of the time, apologetics proper concerns itself with the realm of ideas, point and counterpoint. Talk of one's personal experiences concerning God's power is often excluded or relegated to the province of spiritual theology or debates about the gifts, charismatic renewal, etc. But, many times, believers have had powerful experiences of God's power or of the "supernatural" that have been instrumental in opening their eyes to the spiritual realities in ways that discoursing about ideas could never do. Indeed, the early church was significantly shaped by experience as well as by intellectual concerns and the developmental flow of ideas. Though it remains wise to rein in the potential dangers of unbridled or unexamined experiences, it is also beneficial to recount our personal experiences of "supernature," even as a viable apologetic.

I completely agree. I believe that spiritual experiences (or lack thereof) can often have a far more powerful effect on our epistimology than a strictly rational approach to interpreting reality. Aquinas, after a life-time of academic pursuit of spiritual reality, underwent a spiritual experience toward the end of his life that he said beat the pants off of all his studies.

Sincerely,
Gavin

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Gavin,
Thanks for your response; I agree with you about the strong role experience can play in deepening our faith. Experience during worship and the internal witness of the Spirit become pivotal, taking us well beyond the level of debators of ideas---we experience God as a person, in an "I-Thou" relationship, not as a mere itemized list of principles. I really appreciated what you and Matt had to say, and i think it accords with the insights of those like Plantinga who regard our experience of God as properly basic, and of the same order of experience that we have of other minds, analogous to the kind of relational perception we have of one another as fellow human beings.

Such experiences may well be a fundamental insight intrinsic to consciousness itself, which, in both the Latin and the Greek signifies a sharing of knowledge. This may represent the soliloquy of the "I" and the "me" as two aspects of unified consciousness, the knowing subject as it relates to the objectified self, and a kind of mystical apprehension of the self/other opposition we grasp within the I-Thou relationship.

Some thinkers have posited that God himself is present and instrumental to consciousness, that our self awareness would be perhaps impossible if he were not always active in bringing it about. God has been conceived as the "other" who makes sentience a reality for us. I think it was C S Lewis, who, in his Reflections on the Psalms, speculated about why, in mythology, the disembodied dead in hades were only half-aware revenants who needed blood offerings to reinvigorate their lost consciousness. This would be in keeping with the association between death and Lethe, the mythological river of forgetfulness, and truth as a-letheia ("unconcealment," or a forgeting that is negated with the alpha privative in Heidegger's thought), though Heidegger himself would have no doubt eschewed the association.

In any event, ideas aside, I have had some very unusual experiences of how spiritual realities can intersect the natural world. Before having these experiences I was a Christian who apprehended God intuitively by faith and by the interior witness of the Spirit---which remains far more important than unusual phenomena. But, I was largely a rationalist who did not expect to ever see anything really unusual. I did see some rather miraculous healings in which our Father caused cancerous tumors to disappear, to the doctors' utter loss. These were answers to prayer which I did expect to see occasionally, and they did reinforce my faith, but I had yet to see some of the more "out-there" kind of stuff which later surfaced. Some of these things I hesitate to tell. I hope to get a few more responses from others about how they have experienced God, whether of the intuitive type, healings, or of more unusual phenomena.

[wienerdog]

I haven't experienced a miracle, in the sense of anything that is inexplicable by natural processes. My wife, however, is my own personal theistic argument.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I've let this one lay fallow for a while now, but I gingerly resume it. I start by relating one of my more tame experiences:

When I was an undergrad in the mid-eighties, I lived in an old apartment building with an alley behind it stretching to a convenience store. The alley was the length of a city block. In an urban university, one finds all sorts of people living on the street, homelessness, drug problems, and, a high rate of crime---violent and otherwise. My roommates and I used to go down that alley at all hours to get snacks, and occasionally we'd have run-ins with people you'd rather not meet.

I was walking down this alley in question when I was accosted by a group of men, about five or six of them, all acting in a threatening way. They encircled me and demanded money. The biggest guy was huge---way bigger than me, probably about six foot six or more. (I'm a pretty good-sized person myself, six-three, and over two-hundred pounds.) This guy grabbed my arm with both hands and was making moves to subdue me. I didn't resist, but I prayed mentally, "Lord help me!" Immediately, all of the men grew silent and motionless. I looked into the big one's eyes, and they were completely expressionless. Everyone else was in the same state of stupor. I slowly moved my arm, and the big man's hands fell limply to his sides. Then I began moving carefully out of the circle of immobile men. When I reached the end of the alley some fifty or so yards away, the men were still standing just as they were a minute or so before---encircled around the space where I had been standing, quiet and motionless.

[Gavin]

Pereynol,


I've let this one lay fallow for a while now, but I gingerly resume it. I start by relating one of my more tame experiences:

When I was an undergrad in the mid-eighties, I lived in an old apartment building with an alley behind it stretching to a convenience store. The alley was the length of a city block. In an urban university, one finds all sorts of people living on the street, homelessness, drug problems, and, a high rate of crime---violent and otherwise. My roommates and I used to go down that alley at all hours to get snacks, and occasionally we'd have run-ins with people you'd rather not meet.

I was walking down this alley in question when I was accosted by a group of men, about five or six of them, all acting in a threatening way. They encircled me and demanded money. The biggest guy was huge---way bigger than me, probably about six foot six or more. (I'm a pretty good-sized person myself, six-three, and over two-hundred pounds.) This guy grabbed my arm with both hands and was making moves to subdue me. I didn't resist, but I prayed mentally, "Lord help me!" Immediately, all of the men grew silent and motionless. I looked into the big one's eyes, and they were completely expressionless. Everyone else was in the same state of stupor. I slowly moved my arm, and the big man's hands fell limply to his sides. Then I began moving carefully out of the circle of immobile men. When I reached the end of the alley some fifty or so yards away, the men were still standing just as they were a minute or so before---encircled around the space where I had been standing, quiet and motionless.

That is fascinating story. I have heard stories from other believers similar to your encounter, but in every other case the stories involved angels intervening. Here it seems that God just kind of turned these thugs into vegetables momentarily while you made your getaway!

That reminds of something that did happen to me once, but its late and I am off to bed. I will try and post it sometime soon.

[garthoverman]

The problem with appeals to supernatural experience as evidence of a particular deity's existence is that such claims implicitly beg the question of the existence of the deity supposedly evidenced. We cannot conclude the existence of ANY deity simply because an individual has had a "supernatural experience" At best one might conclude that there IS a god, however WHICH god is still up for grabs (could it be Allah? Loki? Odin? Which?). For that reason (and rightly so!), such appeals are fruitless in any apologetic exercise.

I'll add in closing that although individuals repeatedly report that their "faith is strengthened" with such experiences, I'm of the mind that those individuals more often than not presuppose the existence of their particular flavor of deity to begin with and interpret their experiences within the context of that (typically a priori) presupposition. As a result, claims of "strengthened faith" don't carry much weight with me either. Simplemente mis dos pesos.

Yours,
Garth

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 02:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71039#post71039)
garthoverman:

The problem with appeals to supernatural experience as evidence of a particular deity's existence is that such claims implicitly beg the question of the existence of the deity supposedly evidenced.

Though your point is well taken, I think that experiences can become a part of a powerful cumulative case for God. This isn't to say that there is no room for doubt or critical response, let alone that all rational minds are compelled on the basis of expereince to recognize the existence of God. Yet, if I have had certain experiences, it certainly has an unassailable relevance to me, which no scepticism has much power to dissolve.

In addition, in response to your claims that experiences of this kind beg the question, it is also good to point out that the sceptic's rejection out of hand of such experiences also begs the question in that it refuses to consider other possibilities outside the confines of the sceptic's point of view.



We cannot conclude the existence of ANY deity simply because an individual has had a "supernatural experience" At best one might conclude that there IS a god, however WHICH god is still up for grabs (could it be Allah? Loki? Odin? Which?). For that reason (and rightly so!), such appeals are fruitless in any apologetic exercise.

I suppose, at base, one could simply move toward the simple consideration of an undifferentiated theism, suspending the question as to "which god." One might also suppose that different traditions have commonly grasped a supernatural reality ruled out by scepticism and thereby start to move beyond it.

Of course, my own experiences are not connected to Islam or Norse mythology. I prayed to my God, and he acted. Whether he shares any sort of identitiy with the deity experienced by those in other traditions or not doesn't nullify my experience.



I'll add in closing that although individuals repeatedly report that their "faith is strengthened" with such experiences, I'm of the mind that those individuals more often than not presuppose the existence of their particular flavor of deity to begin with and interpret their experiences within the context of that (typically a priori) presupposition.

And again, I think that sceptics presuppose the nonexistence of the deity or supernature in general, and so dismiss the validity of supernatural experiences out of hand within the context of their own bias.



As a result, claims of "strengthened faith" don't carry much weight with me either. Simplemente mis dos pesos.

Yours,
Garth

And likewise, outright sceptical dismissals of supernatural experiences don't carry much weight with me, in and of themselves. But it certainly doesn't hurt to share one's experiences with others. I share my experiences; you share your doubts. Hopefully we'll come closer to mutual comprehension and respect.

I'll post more of my experiences later....

[garthoverman]

Today @ 12:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71249#post71249)
pereynol:

Though your point is well taken, I think that experiences can become a part of a powerful cumulative case for God. This isn't to say that there is no room for doubt or critical response, let alone that all rational minds are compelled on the basis of expereince to recognize the existence of God. Yet, if I have had certain experiences, it certainly has an unassailable relevance to me, which no scepticism has much power to dissolve.

So be it. Please note that most "cumulative cases for God" that I've encountered merely amount to large assembly of individually fallacious arguments. Putting a bunch of them together doesn't make any of them any more true.


In addition, in response to your claims that experiences of this kind beg the question, it is also good to point out that the sceptic's rejection out of hand of such experiences also begs the question in that it refuses to consider other possibilities outside the confines of the sceptic's point of view.
Come on. The reliability of our physical observations requires the absence of supernatural influences. Once the supernatural is invoked, all the gloves are off, and literally ANY explanation can account for the anomoly in our observations as well as any other explanation.


I suppose, at base, one could simply move toward the simple consideration of an undifferentiated theism, suspending the question as to "which god." One might also suppose that different traditions have commonly grasped a supernatural reality ruled out by scepticism and thereby start to move beyond it.

Perhaps, however religious zealots are seldom wont to accept the most parsimonious explanation for a given experience. Such cases are immediately seized upon as "spritual proof" or "proof by faith" which is really no proof at all.


Of course, my own experiences are not connected to Islam or Norse mythology. I prayed to my God, and he acted. Whether he shares any sort of identitiy with the deity experienced by those in other traditions or not doesn't nullify my experience.

No, but it doesn't rule out the existence of the trickster god that answers prayers made to a God that doesn't exist.


And again, I think that sceptics presuppose the nonexistence of the deity or supernature in general, and so dismiss the validity of supernatural experiences out of hand within the context of their own bias.

That wouldn't have anything to do with the inescapable unreliability and unknowability of the supernatural, would it?


And likewise, outright sceptical dismissals of supernatural experiences don't carry much weight with me, in and of themselves. But it certainly doesn't hurt to share one's experiences with others. I share my experiences; you share your doubts. Hopefully we'll come closer to mutual comprehension and respect.

I do find it funny that "outright sceptical dismissals of supernatural experiences" don't appeal to you, yet you were required to assume "outright" the absence of supernatural influences when you typed your last post and will again when (if) you type the next. Tell me, how can you tell the difference between a natural experience and a supernatural experience? Is there any way to be sure? :huh:

Yours,
Garth

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 08:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71312#post71312)
garthoverman:

So be it. Please note that most "cumulative cases for God" that I've encountered merely amount to large assembly of individually fallacious arguments. Putting a bunch of them together doesn't make any of them any more true.

And a good deal of atheistic objections to theism that I've encountered amount to no more than condescending generalizations. The mere amalgamation of polemical comments doesn't make such any more true, either.



Come on. The reliability of our physical observations requires the absence of supernatural influences. Once the supernatural is invoked, all the gloves are off, and literally ANY explanation can account for the anomoly in our observations as well as any other explanation.

I don't agree with these assertions, and I can trust the reliability of my physical observations as well as anyone who eschews the supernatural.



Perhaps, however religious zealots are seldom wont to accept the most parsimonious explanation for a given experience. Such cases are immediately seized upon as "spritual proof" or "proof by faith" which is really no proof at all.

Whatever the value of these generalizing conjectures, I haven't even addressed the concept of "proof" as yet. You may think me a "religious zealot," but all I've done is describe an experience and I've been pretty circumspect in doing so. In any event, I'm not troubled by your comments.



No, but it doesn't rule out the existence of the trickster god that answers prayers made to a God that doesn't exist.

I think this objection falls under the rubric of the "which god" question you brought up before; if there's any god, even a "trickster" one, then, at the very least, naturalism (as commonly defined) is left by the wayside.



That wouldn't have anything to do with the inescapable unreliability and unknowability of the supernatural, would it?

While it may well be that the "supernatural" is, within your particular subjective experience something that possesses "inescapable unreliability and unknowability," my own experience is quite different. Anyway, to someone who has experienced the "supernatural," these sarcastic remarks of yours have little strength.



I do find it funny that "outright sceptical dismissals of supernatural experiences" don't appeal to you, yet you were required to assume "outright" the absence of supernatural influences when you typed your last post and will again when (if) you type the next.

Theists and atheists tend to level this sort of "you must assume the very worldview you reject" type accusations at one another, but I've never lent much credence to them from either side. Typing a post dealing with the theme of supernature obviously doesn't demand an underlying naturalistic assumption, IMHO. If you want to believe that it does, I suppose that's up to you.



Tell me, how can you tell the difference between a natural experience and a supernatural experience? Is there any way to be sure? :huh:

The common distinction between nature and supernature does carry with it certain assumptions. And it is of course possible to argue that, what you, as a naturalist or sceptic, might call an "anomalous experience" could be explained differently under a theistic or a naturalistic paradigm. It is also possible to proceed toward a kind of stalemate in which the sceptic asserts that, since the theist cannot prove that her experience is genuinely "supernatural," then it might in fact have been the product of a naturalistic cosmos, etc.

The kind of assertions you've been making often cut both ways, and, as I said, theists and sceptics often hurl such things at one another rather than having genuine conversations out of a greater desire to achieve real mutual understanding. I'm not much interested in this sort of polemical "hurling." And I'm not antagonistic towards those who happen to disagree with me, so if you want that kind of exchange, you might want to look for it elsewhere. If you want to discuss substantive ideas with decorum, however, I'm game....

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Another experience I had was similar to the first, though it happened about a year later: I went to a restaurant on a street bordering my university, and, as I entered, I noticed that some of the tables had been overthrown. A fight had broken out between two groups of men. One group had on black leather jackets and were part of the "Pagan" motorcycle club. Though the brawl was mostly over, there was still a good bit of animosity in the air. I ducked into the restroom, and one of the guys who had been fighting followed me in. He glared at me, and the whole time I was washing my hands, he was making threatening expressions. As I went to leave, he rushed in front of me and barred my exit. Then he slammed his back against the door and crossed his arms, again staring angrily. There was about three feet between us. Again, as in my earlier story, I prayed silently and went unhesitantly toward him. As I got within inches of his face and put my hand to the doorknob, he got that same blank expression as that of the men in my first such experience. His former malice turned into a vacuous trance, and he suddenly fell aside, entirely inert, as I opened the door.

[Gavin]

Dear Garthoverman,


The problem with appeals to supernatural experience as evidence of a particular deity's existence is that such claims implicitly beg the question of the existence of the deity supposedly evidenced. We cannot conclude the existence of ANY deity simply because an individual has had a "supernatural experience" At best one might conclude that there IS a god, however WHICH god is still up for grabs (could it be Allah? Loki? Odin? Which?). For that reason (and rightly so!), such appeals are fruitless in any apologetic exercise.

I'll add in closing that although individuals repeatedly report that their "faith is strengthened" with such experiences, I'm of the mind that those individuals more often than not presuppose the existence of their particular flavor of deity to begin with and interpret their experiences within the context of that (typically a priori) presupposition. As a result, claims of "strengthened faith" don't carry much weight with me either. Simplemente mis dos pesos.

Yours,
Garthp

But what about when the dead are raised, the blind see, and and lame walk all in the power of Jesus' name, specifically? When it is only those prayers offered in the context of faith in Jesus that witness supernatural response, it leads not to a generalized theism but to Christianity. Thoughts?

The other story I was going to share at the close of my last email was simply that once while on a missions trip to Vancouver I shared the gospel with someone who started punching me in retaliation and kicking me extremely hard. I remember I was too stunned to do anything; I just stood there imbibing the blows. Then he backed off suddenly and sat whimpering a few feet away. I am unsure whether he was under the influence of a demon or not.

In any case, I remember examining myself a few minutes later, and being surprised to find that there were no bruises at all on my body - in fact, it had not hurt at all, even though he was punching me as hard as he could.

Not necessarily miraculous in a strong sense of the term, but just a story of God's provision of which Pereynol's story reminded me.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71443#post71443)
pereynol:

And a good deal of atheistic objections to theism that I've encountered amount to no more than condescending generalizations. The mere amalgamation of polemical comments doesn't make such any more true, either.
It seems as though you fancy yourself to be an exception. We'll just see 'bout that....


I don't agree with these assertions, and I can trust the reliability of my physical observations as well as anyone who eschews the supernatural.
How can you when you'll readily accept that some events will inevitably defy your perceptions? Furthermore, how would you even localize the miracle event you think you may have experienced? You realize that the connex that extends from the moment of an event, through our senses and into our minds depends on a series of events that perform ABSENT of supernatural influences. You couldn't be any more sure that water changed to wine than you can be certain that it wasn't merely the photons affected in mid-air to create the appearance that the water was changed, or any more than you can be certain that it wasn't your memory of the event that was altered after the fact. The most you could say is that SOMEWHERE along that series of events, natural law failed.


Whatever the value of these generalizing conjectures, I haven't even addressed the concept of "proof" as yet. You may think me a "religious zealot," but all I've done is describe an experience and I've been pretty circumspect in doing so. In any event, I'm not troubled by your comments.
Listen, the point of this thread was to discuss the value of "supernatural" experiences in apologetic discourse, and I'm simply telling you that there is none for the reasons I gave above.



I think this objection falls under the rubric of the "which god" question you brought up before; if there's any god, even a "trickster" one, then, at the very least, naturalism (as commonly defined) is left by the wayside.
Hardly. His Supreme Indifference could've created the universe yet left it alone to run its course consistently according to natural law. The pantheistic god is the natural universe itself. I think your version of how natrualism is "commonly defined" amounts to a strawman.



While it may well be that the "supernatural" is, within your particular subjective experience something that possesses "inescapable unreliability and unknowability," my own experience is quite different. Anyway, to someone who has experienced the "supernatural," these sarcastic remarks of yours have little strength.
Then why don't you please describe for us your method of arrving at the certainty which you claim to have. How is it that you are so certain that your "experience" is NOT the cause of some hallucination? Have you ever induced a hallucination in yourself before?



Theists and atheists tend to level this sort of "you must assume the very worldview you reject" type accusations at one another, but I've never lent much credence to them from either side. Typing a post dealing with the theme of supernature obviously doesn't preclude an underlying naturalistic assumption, IMHO. If you want to believe that it does, I suppose that's up to you.
Are you going to tell me that at some time while you were typing your last post you were not sure whether that was really a keyboard you were hammering on or not? If you were certain that it was really a keyboard, I must ask, how did you come by that certainty? It couldn't be that you expected the physical matter of your body to perform just as it has so many times before, could it? Acording to natural law? Of course not! We must take the "supernatural" into account! :no:


The common distinction between nature and supernature does carry with it certain assumptions. And it is of course possible to argue that, what you, as a naturalist or sceptic, might call an "anomalous experience" could be explained differently under a theistic or a naturalistic paradigm. It is also possible to proceed toward a kind of stalemate in which the sceptic asserts that, since the theist cannot prove that her experience is genuinely "supernatural," then it might in fact have been the product of a naturalistic cosmos, etc.
That's exactly my point! You started this thread trying to shine the light on argument from supernatural experience and I've shown you that it does not let us conclude anything! The best you've said is that it makes a good part of a "cumulative case" which really boils down to trying to associate it with some OTHER argument hoping the appeal of the second might somehow rub off on the first!


The kind of assertions you've been making often cut both ways, and, as I said, theists and sceptics often hurl such things at one another rather than having genuine conversations out of a greater desire to achieve real mutual understanding. I'm not much interested in this sort of polemical "hurling." And I'm not antagonistic towards those who happen to disagree with me, so if you want that kind of exchange, you might want to look for it elsewhere. If you want to discuss substantive ideas with decorum, however, I'm game....
I'd love to discuss some substantive ideas. "Supernatural" stories don't have much substance to them. That's the point.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Today @ 04:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71624#post71624)
Gavin:
But what about when the dead are raised, the blind see, and and lame walk all in the power of Jesus' name, specifically? When it is only those prayers offered in the context of faith in Jesus that witness supernatural response, it leads not to a generalized theism but to Christianity. Thoughts?
What raised dead? What seeing blindmen? You mean the stories in the Bible? I hope you have something more recent and better documented than that.


The other story I was going to share at the close of my last email was simply that once while on a missions trip to Vancouver I shared the gospel with someone who started punching me in retaliation and kicking me extremely hard. I remember I was too stunned to do anything; I just stood there imbibing the blows. Then he backed off suddenly and sat whimpering a few feet away. I am unsure whether he was under the influence of a demon or not.
Or maybe a controlled substance? Or mental duress? None of these are possible?


In any case, I remember examining myself a few minutes later, and being surprised to find that there were no bruises at all on my body - in fact, it had not hurt at all, even though he was punching me as hard as he could.

Not necessarily miraculous in a strong sense of the term, but just a story of God's provision of which Pereynol's story reminded me.
Which god? Jehovah? Allah? Loki? Zeus? It seems as though you've also begged the question of your god's existence - as I originally described - and interpreted your experience in that context a priori.

Yours,
Garth

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 01:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71774#post71774)
garthoverman:


It seems as though you fancy yourself to be an exception. We'll just see 'bout that....

As I said before, if it's polemics and contention you're after, look elsewhere. As it is, there won't be any "we" to "just see 'bout" anything....



How can you when you'll readily accept that some events will inevitably defy your perceptions?

If I perceive an event, however unusual, it cannot be said to thereby defy my pereceptions.



Furthermore, how would you even localize the miracle event you think you may have experienced?

You are the first to introduce the term "miracle" into our discussion. But however one defines unusual events, and whether one avails oneself of supernatural explanations or not, one need have absolutely no trouble in recognizing, isolating, or, as you put it, "localizing" the event as unusual. Otherwise, we couldn't even be having this conversation. As we are having this conversation, there is obviously enough of a meaningful distinction between the "normal" and the unusual, the "miraculous," etc. for us both to make some sense of what we're discussing....



You realize that the connex that extends from the moment of an event, through our senses and into our minds depends on a series of events that perform ABSENT of supernatural influences.

Depending on one's perspective with respect to the philosophy of mind, this may well be true, yet, it is by no means the case that an assumed mind/body physicalism would prevent the perception or the recognition of supernature.



You couldn't be any more sure that water changed to wine than you can be certain that it wasn't merely the photons affected in mid-air to create the appearance that the water was changed, or any more than you can be certain that it wasn't your memory of the event that was altered after the fact. The most you could say is that SOMEWHERE along that series of events, natural law failed.

I don't think you're being consitent here; how could you object to a person's being able to ascertain whether water actually changed into wine and yet still assert that natural law had failed? If you don't know that the water actually changed into wine, how would you know that natural law had failed? Under your own sceptical criteria, perhaps natural law only appeared to fail. In any case, one can still speak phenomenlogically with respect to one's perception of events, and proceed on that basis; one can say, "It appears that water changed to wine, and that natural law was subverted."

Of course, we are simply engaging in the common exchange of point/counterpoint that has occured again and again between theists and sceptics.



Listen, the point of this thread was to discuss the value of "supernatural" experiences in apologetic discourse, and I'm simply telling you that there is none for the reasons I gave above.

Since I started the thread, perhaps I should tell you what its point really is. I'll allow that part of the point of the thread was to "discuss supernatural experiences in apologetic discourse," but the bulk of the thread was for those experiences to be described phenomenologically and talked about, rather than to simply rehearse the historical sceptical/theistic philosophical debate in general.



Hardly. His Supreme Indifference could've created the universe yet left it alone to run its course consistently according to natural law. The pantheistic god is the natural universe itself. I think your version of how natrualism is "commonly defined" amounts to a strawman.

You're introducing topics I've not even addressed yet, but again, if you allow that any god exists, even if it's a "trickster" or an "indifferent" one, you are no longer speaking as a naturalist. As to pantheism, I've not yet mentioned that, and, along the same lines, neither have I constructed any argumentation about naturalism such that it might be branded a "strawman." All I've done is to assert that, because naturalism generally denies the existence of supernatural beings, if a self-avowed naturalist should affrim such a being, be it a trickster or whatever, he has moved outside the naturalistic viewpoint. That's not a very controversial claim....



Then why don't you please describe for us your method of arrving at the certainty which you claim to have. How is it that you are so certain that your "experience" is NOT the cause of some hallucination? Have you ever induced a hallucination in yourself before?

Have I claimed certainty anywhere above? No, not yet. But I do have a convinced certainty, which I'll explain in due time....

[garthoverman]

Today @ 05:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72107#post72107)
pereynol:

If I perceive an event, however unusual, it cannot be said to thereby defy my pereceptions.

Fine. Correction, then: they will defy your physical observations. If your perceptions aren't phsyical observations, what are they? Imagination?



You are the first to introduce the term "miracle" into our discussion. But however one defines unusual events, and whether one avails oneself of supernatural explanations or not, one need have absolutely no trouble in recognizing, isolating, or, as you put it, "localizing" the event as unusual.
Then please describe for us the reliable method you must have for determining WHICH event was the "unusual" one. Is it the water turning into wine? The photon's changing velocity and frequency? The refraction of the photons through your cornea?



Otherwise, we couldn't even be having this conversation. As we are having this conversation, there is obviously enough of a meaningful distinction between the "normal" and the unusual, the "miraculous," etc. for us both to make some sense of what we're discussing....
Yet you want me to believe that you're NOT dismissing "outright" the possible interference of supernatural influences. How could you know? You must realize that the a priori assumption that solipsism is false is equal to an "outright" dismissal of supernatural influences. (And yes, I know that I am the first to mention solipsism. I will continue to introduce subjects which I feel are pertinent to the discussion, and I will do so without apology.)



Depending on one's perspective with respect to the philosophy of mind, this may well be true, yet, it is by no means the case that an assumed mind/body physicalism would prevent the perception or the recognition of supernature.

So you must be talking about some kind of extrasensory perception, then. Since the functioning of your physical senses relies on the ABSENCE of supernatural influences, you can't be speaking of them, right? If you are merely speaking ofthe physical senses, how is that you "recognize" supernature with them when their proper functioning is dependant upon the ABSENCE of supernatural interference?



I don't think you're being consitent here; how could you object to a person's being able to ascertain whether water actually changed into wine and yet still assert that natural law had failed?

Basically, I don't think you can. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.


If you don't know that the water actually changed into wine, how would you know that natural law had failed? Under your own sceptical criteria, perhaps natural law only appeared to fail. In any case, one can still speak phenomenlogically with respect to one's perception of events, and proceed on that basis; one can say, "It appears that water changed to wine, and that natural law was subverted."
Exactly. We may speak only of appearances, since the only way to accurately describe reality is to assume its regular and consistent behavior. For that reason, it is irrational to conclude the existence of the "supernatural" simply because one event appeared to subvert natrual law.


Of course, we are simply engaging in the common exchange of point/counterpoint that has occured again and again between theists and sceptics.

Is that not what these forums are for?



Since I started the thread, perhaps I should tell you what its point really is. I'll allow that part of the point of the thread was to "discuss supernatural experiences in apologetic discourse," but the bulk of the thread was for those experiences to be described phenomenologically and talked about, rather than to simply rehearse the historical sceptical/theistic philosophical debate in general.
Its a free forum. If you didn't want to deal with skepticism, perhaps you should've posted your inquiry in a more private venue. Or you could choose not to respond.



You're introducing topics I've not even addressed yet, but again, if you allow that any god exists, even if it's a "trickster" or an "indifferent" one, you are no longer speaking as a naturalist. As to pantheism, I've not yet mentioned that, and, along the same lines, neither have I constructed any argumentation about naturalism such that it might be branded a "strawman." All I've done is to assert that, because naturalism generally denies the existence of supernatural beings, if a self-avowed naturalist should affrim such a being, be it a trickster or whatever, he has moved outside the naturalistic viewpoint. That's not a very controversial claim....
My point was simpy to refute your statement that conceding the existence of ANY god negated naturalism. It doesn't. The pantheistic god is not supernatural, hence your strawman.

"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature" ~Frank Lloyd Wright.

Yours,
Garth

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 04:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72346#post72346)
garthoverman:

Yet you want me to believe that you're NOT dismissing "outright" the possible interference of supernatural influences.

Why would I dismiss supernatural influences? How do you know what I "want" you to believe?



You must realize that the a priori assumption that solipsism is false is equal to an "outright" dismissal of supernatural influences.

Nonsense.



(And yes, I know that I am the first to mention solipsism. I will continue to introduce subjects which I feel are pertinent to the discussion, and I will do so without apology.)

You're of course free to introduce whatever extraneous topic you desire, with all the venom at your disposal. You may end up ranting to yourself within your own solipsistic soliloquy, but you're welcome to do so, if that's what floats your boat....



So you must be talking about some kind of extrasensory perception, then. Since the functioning of your physical senses relies on the ABSENCE of supernatural influences, you can't be speaking of them, right?

Why would you think that the "physical senses" cannot coexist with or apprehend supernatural phenomena?



Basically, I don't think you can. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

How do scepticism and giving the benefit of the doubt cohere?



We may speak only of appearances, since the only way to accurately describe reality is to assume its regular and consistent behavior. For that reason, it is irrational to conclude the existence of the "supernatural" simply because one event appeared to subvert natrual law.

While we may speak of anything we like, a sceptic and a theist may only arrive at common ground via an agreement to proceed phenomenologically. Rationality is another question. Further, "one event" isn't the issue; if natural law appears to be subverted, that appearance will be interpreted differently with respect to the separate evaluative criteria employed by the theist and the sceptic. All this remains terribly obvious.



Its a free forum. If you didn't want to deal with skepticism, perhaps you should've posted your inquiry in a more private venue.

I had hoped to "deal with" something a little more substantial and a bit more courteous.



Or you could choose not to respond.

In your case, I foresee availing myself of that liberty....



My point was simpy to refute your statement that conceding the existence of ANY god negated naturalism. It doesn't. The pantheistic god is not supernatural, hence your strawman.

So you identify pantheism with naturalism? Were you proposing the pantheistic "trickster" god earlier when you were trying to argue against theism---even though pantheism had not been brought up and the context of the discussion was theism vs. naturalism?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 12:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72562#post72562)
pereynol:

Why would you think that the "physical senses" cannot coexist with or apprehend supernatural phenomena?
Because -- as I've said repeatedly -- physical sensation depends on a SERIES of events that all consistently behave in accordance with natural law and ABSENT of supernatural influences. If you compromise that integrity, it is impossible to reliably infer reality from your senses.



How do scepticism and giving the benefit of the doubt cohere?
The don't, and since you've decided to press the issue, you no longer have it.



While we may speak of anything we like, a sceptic and a theist may only arrive at common ground via an agreement to proceed phenomenologically. Rationality is another question. Further, "one event" isn't the issue; if natural law appears to be subverted, that appearance will be interpreted differently with respect to the separate evaluative criteria employed by the theist and the sceptic. All this remains terribly obvious.
Yes, obviously if you presuppose the existence of a supernatural entity its easy to employ that entity as an explanation for literally ANY experience. However, the presupposition of an entity capable of interfering with your preception immediately undermines the reliability of the the very faculty with which you claim to have apprehended it! Observations are meaningless.



I had hoped to "deal with" something a little more substantial and a bit more courteous.
Disappointment is a part of life...



So you identify pantheism with naturalism?

Yes.


Were you proposing the pantheistic "trickster" god earlier when you were trying to argue against theism---even though pantheism had not been brought up and the context of the discussion was theism vs. naturalism?
No, the trickster god I first brought up was not pantheistic. It was merely a means of illustrating to you the inherent unfalsifiability of claimed "supernatrual" entities since their freedom to affect reality can be shaped to account for the ANY appearance. That, coupled with the undermined capacity to reliably apprehend reailty with the physical senses renders claimed "experience" with these entities meaningless in trying to deduce an reality theory (to which the existence of gods is a fundametal question)

Yours,
Garth

[Woman]

This is more or less a stream of consciousness post. I am not challenging anyone's beliefs or experiences.

I do believe that what we can know and experience through our five senses is not all there is. So, I'm fairly open minded with regard to the possibility of the supernatural.

What troubles me is that, if indeed, warding off the threat of bodily harm from a bully was affected by a silent plea to "Help me God," how does that make you feel? And how do you think every other believer who has suffered at the hands of another feels when they hear your testimony?

If only one could somehow account for or justify these experiences. But virtually everyone who finds him or herself in danger will menatlly cry out to God for help and protection. Generally it is not forthcoming. The beating happens. The rape happens. The pain continues. The mugging, robbery, attack, molestation just happens. I think this poses larger problems for Divine intervention than it solves.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 01:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72772#post72772)
Woman:

This is more or less a stream of consciousness post. I am not challenging anyone's beliefs or experiences.

I do believe that what we can know and experience through our five senses is not all there is. So, I'm fairly open minded with regard to the possibility of the supernatural.

What troubles me is that, if indeed, warding off the threat of bodily harm from a bully was affected by a silent plea to "Help me God," how does that make you feel? And how do you think every other believer who has suffered at the hands of another feels when they hear your testimony?

If only one could somehow account for or justify these experiences. But virtually everyone who finds him or herself in danger will menatlly cry out to God for help and protection. Generally it is not forthcoming. The beating happens. The rape happens. The pain continues. The mugging, robbery, attack, molestation just happens. I think this poses larger problems for Divine intervention than it solves.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

I can sympathize with this more than you know. It's interesting that you should bring this up.

Around the time the events I've described took place, a friend of mine was murdered. She was a beautiful person, full of love and light---a far better person than myself, in my estimation. One night as she was walking home by herself, some maniac knifed her to death; he stabbed her 17 times and left her bleeding. All the students in our immediate circle felt her loss very deeply, and, as we all believed in God, we all felt a kind of crisis. You can bet I was asking myself why I had been spared harm while she had not. And we all began to question our assumptions about the extent to which God is supposed to take care of us.

I think one assumption we had revolved around the idea that God must behave with mechanistic consistency; if he were not to do this, he would not be just or even reliable. But the world doesn't work that way. Reality is not punctuated with supernatural intervention in every case of human injustice. God seems to intervene at times, but not mechanistically. In keeping with this, the biblical picture of God's intervention is not one of mechanistic consistency either, and our trust in God isn't predicated upon his always providing an on demand supernatural act with the consistency of clockwork.

What we get from the scriptures is more like the assertion: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him." In other words, our trust in God is not founded upon his granting us a kind of heaven on earth, but rather upon his promises and presence in the middle of a world engulfed in evil, a world out of joint. As the three men who stood up to the king in Daniel 3:17-18 said, "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods..." And while it was a struggle for our circle of friends to realize that God had never promised us heaven on earth or supernatural intervention like clockwork, we all managed, even in our weakness, to recognize the fact. No one wants to suffer. No one wants to see those he cares for suffer, but we all do suffer. And we all die. Death is a barrier, an unavoidable limit that puts an end to man's pretension to godhead, and as such, it becomes a kind of mercy, even as it is often taken for a curse.

The "problem of evil," as an intellectual concern is a multiform philosophical enterprise, as is the formulation of theodicies and the objections to such by sceptics. Anyone who wishes may read the ongoing history of these unfolding and complex arguments. The most striking thing about such arguments is that, invariably, each side remains convinced of their position while failing to persuade their opponents.

But there is a more vital "problem of evil," and that is embodied in the grief, fear, and pain everyone feels when confronted with suffering, injustice, and death. And when our friend was murdered, what we didn't need was a litany of theodicies or philosophical arguments. We had these things at our disposal, but they weren't very useful. And we felt equally uneasy with the idea that, "See, God let this happen, therefore he's not to be trusted," or, "Sometimes God intervenes, othertimes not, therefore, since he doesn't behave with mechanistic regularity, either he's not real, or he's malevolent." We could have assumed any of these things, but we didn't. Rather, we chose to thank him for the good and trust him in spite of the bad. I suppose I should say that we collapsed in our weakness, but that he upheld us.

I for one couldn't deny my own experinces of his goodness, and neither could my friends. One friend gave a partial answer to the question, "If God is love, then why is there so much pain in the world?" with "When you personally hurt someone else, is God the one you[ blame?" Culpability and human free agency go hand in hand. So, realizing that we had no definitively conclusive answers to lay to rest all uneasiness concerning evil in the world didn't prevent us from trusting in the good we knew God had given us, and it certainly allowed us to dispense with our formerly naive expectations about God somehow having some sort of obligation to intervene like clockwork. This was our provisional, working solution, and it coincides with the biblical picture of God ,the world, and evil. But those who don't believe won't be able to take solace here.

I have had quite a few further experiences of God's intervention, some of which I'll relate later and some of which I'll keep to myself. These experiences have helped to mold my worldview because I do not doubt their veracity. And though I'm quite familiar with the complexity of the philosophical debate concerning supernature, evil, etc, the resolution of the debate itself resides also in experience, in life and in the very core of our own subjectivity, not in mere words, eloquence, or the verve of our polemics. None of us are detached or truly disinterested. We face the horizon of death, as well as our own transience, suffering, and frailty. We can do so before God, or we can do so alone.

This is an honest attempt to answer the concerns you raised, incomplete as it must be....

[Gavin]

Garth:


sorry to be so long to get back to you.


What raised dead? What seeing blindmen? You mean the stories in the Bible? I hope you have something more recent and better documented than that.

The story I shared, of course, was certainly not intended to be such evidence. I was referring to both Scriptural miracles and present day miracles. I am not going to try to document such miracles for you. My point is simply that, if miracles only do occur in the name of Jesus, then this leads not to a generalized theism but to Christianity specifically. (Again just assume for the sake of argument that miracles are done only through the power of Jesus.)

In this scenario such supernatural occurences would lead to Christianity exclusively - agree or disagree?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74270#post74270)
Gavin:

The story I shared, of course, was certainly not intended to be such evidence. I was referring to both Scriptural miracles and present day miracles. I am not going to try to document such miracles for you. My point is simply that, if miracles only do occur in the name of Jesus, then this leads not to a generalized theism but to Christianity specifically. (Again just assume for the sake of argument that miracles are done only through the power of Jesus.)
Sorry, you'll get no such assumption from me.



In this scenario such supernatural occurences would lead to Christianity exclusively - agree or disagree?
Disagree. Supernatural occurances do not "lead" to anything because the existence of supernatural effects fatally compromises the integrity of our observations. The ability to MAKE deductions from our observations relies on a perceptive-cognitive syntax that must remain free of interference, and is assumed to behave consistently through time. Supernatural effects disrupt the syntax, and therefore all deductions are likewise compromised.

Yours,
Garth

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

04-18-2003 @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72666#post72666)
garthoverman:


Because -- as I've said repeatedly -- physical sensation depends on a SERIES of events that all consistently behave in accordance with natural law and ABSENT of supernatural influences. If you compromise that integrity, it is impossible to reliably infer reality from your senses.

Yes, you have said this repeatedly, but what you have not done is to substantiate your claims conclusively by argument. Why cannot "supernatural influences" have some relationship to "physical sensation?"



Yes, obviously if you presuppose the existence of a supernatural entity its easy to employ that entity as an explanation for literally ANY experience. However, the presupposition of an entity capable of interfering with your preception immediately undermines the reliability of the the very faculty with which you claim to have apprehended it! Observations are meaningless.

A slippery slope generalization hardly proves your case.



Disappointment is a part of life...

Why be deliberately unpleasant?

When I asked whether you identified naturalism with pantheism, you answered:


Yes.


Are you a pantheist, then, as well as a naturalist?



No, the trickster god I first brought up was not pantheistic. It was merely a means of illustrating to you the inherent unfalsifiability of claimed "supernatrual" entities since their freedom to affect reality can be shaped to account for the ANY appearance.

How would the mere rhetorical mention of a non-pantheistic "trickster god" possibly demonstrate the "unfalsifiiability" of any other "claimed supernatural entity?" Why would you suppose that when you rhetorically posit a "trickster god," which is itself no more than a "claimed supernatural entity," all other "claimed supernatural entities" become demonstrably unfalsifiable?

Further, if all "claimed supernatural entities" are actually unfalsifiable, then why are you ostensibly trying so hard to falsify such claims? Either such claims are unfalsifiable or they are not. Which is it?



That, coupled with the undermined capacity to reliably apprehend reailty with the physical senses renders claimed "experience" with these entities meaningless in trying to deduce an reality theory (to which the existence of gods is a fundametal question)

No. Experience itself preceeds theory formulation. And if "claimed supernatural entities" are as "unfalsifiable" as you inconsistently assert, then exactly how would questions about such entities prove axiomatic to a theory? Are you a foundationalist? If so, what do you mean by "fundamental question" with respect to deduction and reality theory?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 05:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74412#post74412)
pereynol:

Yes, you have said this repeatedly, but what you have not done is to substantiate your claims conclusively by argument. Why cannot "supernatural influences" have some relationship to "physical sensation?"
Did you not read my last post to Gavin where I said:

"...the existence of supernatural effects fatally compromises the integrity of our observations. The ability to MAKE deductions from our observations relies on a perceptive-cognitive syntax that must remain free of interference, and is assumed to behave consistently through time. Supernatural effects disrupt the syntax, and therefore all deductions are likewise compromised."

Yet all you've done to rebut me is assert that I'm wrong, fail to substantiate that assertion with a substantive argument, and repeatedly dodge my questions.



A slippery slope generalization hardly proves your case.
Hows about showing us how what I've said is untrue. You could start by describing your method for pin-pointing a supernatural event and objectively differentiating it from other supernatural explanations.



Why be deliberately unpleasant?
Aw. Did I hurt your feelings?



Are you a pantheist, then, as well as a naturalist?
Irrelevant.



How would the mere rhetorical mention of a non-pantheistic "trickster god" possibly demonstrate the "unfalsifiiability" of any other "claimed supernatural entity?" Why would you suppose that when you rhetorically posit a "trickster god," which is itself no more than a "claimed supernatural entity," all other "claimed supernatural entities" become demonstrably unfalsifiable?
Both entities can account for the same experience and it is impossible to objectively differentiate them.



Further, if all "claimed supernatural entities" are actually unfalsifiable, then why are you ostensibly trying so hard to falsify such claims? Either such claims are unfalsifiable or they are not. Which is it?
They are not, and that is the point which you have apparently failed to grasp thus far.



No. Experience itself preceeds theory formulation.
Sure it does, but that's not the point. Allowing for supernatural interference undermines the certainty of your experience since it is impossible to pin-point an actual supernatural event. If your experience isn't assumed to be ABSENT of supernatural interference your observations are meaningless since the absence of that assumption equals a resignation to the fact that your perceptions won't accurately reflect reality and may be manipulated at the will of some undetectable entity.



And if "claimed supernatural entities" are as "unfalsifiable" as you inconsistently assert, then exactly how would questions about such entities prove axiomatic to a theory? Are you a foundationalist? If so, what do you mean by "fundamental question" with respect to deduction and reality theory?
If a god exists, it must be representative of the ultimate reality. Some postulations of gods are unfalsifiable and questions regarding these are meaningless. Not all gods are unfalisfiable, however, depending on how they are defined.

Yours,
Garth

[Blake Reas]

Pereynol,

This is a great post and discussion! I am on my way to being a "Bloeschite" in the matters of the Holy Spirit. I agree with him that the spirit of God has been given the back seat in recent Christian thought. I am with Calvin and Luther when I say that there is evidence for Christianity but saving faith does not come from this. The Spirit illuminates us to see the real message and apply it to our lives. It also gives us the Supernatural presupposition which distinguishes our beliefs about scripture from the non-believer who will discount the supernatural. This also comes from my strong leaning on presuppositonalism.
The Spirit of God is what saves us through God's choice of us. He illuminates us to see his word and respond.
I am like Gavin I have never had a "burning bush"(though I would love to have the experience of God in that way) but I get a since of peace or brokenness at times that I did not when I was not a Christian. I know that it is God and I cannot tell the Atheist what it is like but I know that it is God because .............. no words to describe it! :yx:

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Garth,

I think many of your objections can be cleared up by a Calvinistic theology. In my view there are no accidents. But then again I really do not have time to debate so maybe I should not post this. :cheers:

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 02:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74449#post74449)
garthoverman:


Did you not read my last post to Gavin where I said:

"...the existence of supernatural effects fatally compromises the integrity of our observations. The ability to MAKE deductions from our observations relies on a perceptive-cognitive syntax that must remain free of interference, and is assumed to behave consistently through time. Supernatural effects disrupt the syntax, and therefore all deductions are likewise compromised."

You're a long way from achieving a conclusive argument here. You assert that our "ability to make decductions relies on a perceptive-cognitive syntax that must remain free of interference and is assumed to behave consistently through time." (Is this your own terminology?)

First, your assertion distinguishes and links the "perceptive and the "cognitive." But it remains to elaborate the exact relation between these two categories. Can there be perception without cognition? How so? And how does one derive a "syntax" from these? When you say "syntax," do you mean linguistically or metaphorically? And are you speaking of sequence? At what point in the relation (which, according to your formulation, must be temporal) might an alleged "interference" take place so that "our ability to make deductions" would thereby be foiled? You'll need to elaborate on these issues before your assertions even approach the status of a demonstration.



Yet all you've done to rebut me is assert that I'm wrong, fail to substantiate that assertion with a substantive argument, and repeatedly dodge my questions.

That's because, so far, nothing you've asserted merits anything more than a counter-assertion. When you begin to make a substantive argument, then I'll be enabled to reply in kind. One step at a time....



Hows about showing us how what I've said is untrue. You could start by describing your method for pin-pointing a supernatural event and objectively differentiating it from other supernatural explanations.

Why should I do your work for you? I prefer to let you make your own case.



Aw. Did I hurt your feelings?

No; you've only been annoying and vacuous. Thoughtful of you to ask, though....


I asked if, since you said you identified naturalism with pantheism, whether you are a pantheist. You replied:


Irrelevant.

No, it's not. Are you a pantheist? Perhaps you see the hole you've dug for yourself and are trying to elude it? Whatever your criteria for evaluating whether an assumption like theism or supernature is falsifiable or not, the same must be applied to whatever assumptions you yourself embrace within your own worldview. I presume you want to exclude certain kinds of supernature from your methodology on the grounds that they are unfalsifiable, yet you also seem to want to falsify them. Theory and praxis. Yet, is naturalism falsifiable? Is pantheism?



Both entities can account for the same experience and it is impossible to objectively differentiate them.

This elusive response won't save you. Again, how can the rhetorical positing of a "claimed supernatural entity" serve to "demonstrate" that all other "claimed supernatural entities" are "unfalsifiable?"



They are not, and that is the point which you have apparently failed to grasp thus far.

No, that is rather the point you have apparently failed to make thus far. If your points remain vague and inconsistent, you'll need to clarify them a bit. (Look at your previous posts a little more carefully, and you'll {I hope} see what I mean). Under what precise criteria are some "claimed supernatural entities" falsifiable and others not?



Sure it does, but that's not the point. Allowing for supernatural interference undermines the certainty of your experience since it is impossible to pin-point an actual supernatural event. If your experience isn't assumed to be ABSENT of supernatural interference your observations are meaningless since the absence of that assumption equals a resignation to the fact that your perceptions won't accurately reflect reality and may be manipulated at the will of some undetectable entity.

No. Perception, whatever its process, may be subject to various sorts of interference and manipulation from all sorts of entities, whether natural or supernatural, but perception isn't thereby rendered "meaningless." You'll have to do better than that....



If a god exists, it must be representative of the ultimate reality. Some postulations of gods are unfalsifiable and questions regarding these are meaningless. Not all gods are unfalisfiable, however, depending on how they are defined.

Yours,
Garth

How about something to substantiate your assertions? Why and how are certain postualtions of gods unfalsifiable and meaningless and others not? What evaluative criteria do you propose? Exactly what definitions do you employ?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 02:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74456#post74456)
Blake Reas:

Pereynol,

This is a great post and discussion! I am on my way to being a "Bloeschite" in the matters of the Holy Spirit. I agree with him that the spirit of God has been given the back seat in recent Christian thought. I am with Calvin and Luther when I say that there is evidence for Christianity but saving faith does not come from this. The Spirit illuminates us to see the real message and apply it to our lives. It also gives us the Supernatural presupposition which distinguishes our beliefs about scripture from the non-believer who will discount the supernatural. This also comes from my strong leaning on presuppositonalism.
The Spirit of God is what saves us through God's choice of us. He illuminates us to see his word and respond.
I am like Gavin I have never had a "burning bush"(though I would love to have the experience of God in that way) but I get a since of peace or brokenness at times that I did not when I was not a Christian. I know that it is God and I cannot tell the Atheist what it is like but I know that it is God because .............. no words to describe it! :yx:

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

Blake,
I think you've made some excellent observations, especailly about the relevance of presuppositionalism. In the end, the sceptic will be able to maintain his scepticism, and the theist his theism, but they will not be able to disarm one another. Conversions do happen, of course, but that is also a matter of the heart and the will. Usually, arguments are constructed to conserve convictions as much as the reverse. The two are mutually propulsive.

[Gavin]

Garth,


Disagree. Supernatural occurances do not "lead" to anything because the existence of supernatural effects fatally compromises the integrity of our observations. The ability to MAKE deductions from our observations relies on a perceptive-cognitive syntax that must remain free of interference, and is assumed to behave consistently through time. Supernatural effects disrupt the syntax, and therefore all deductions are likewise compromised.

Yours,
Garth

It looks like you have something of an assumption there yourself - that we doubt the integrity of our observations BEFORE we believe in miracles. IOW, it looks like you are already convinced that miracles cannot happen before justifying your reasons for thinking that way.

Blessings,
Gavin

[garthoverman]

Today @ 08:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74468#post74468)
pereynol:

You're a long way from achieving a conclusive argument here. You assert that our "ability to make decductions relies on a perceptive-cognitive syntax that must remain free of interference and is assumed to behave consistently through time." (Is this your own terminology?)
I've seen it phrased likewise before, though I forget where. I think it was in an essay by Christopher Michael Lanagan.


First, your assertion distinguishes and links the "perceptive and the "cognitive." But it remains to elaborate the exact relation between these two categories. Can there be perception without cognition? How so?
Depends on your definition of perception. Light sensitive film can detect the emission of a photon. Would you consider the photon perceived once detected? I would.


And how does one derive a "syntax" from these? When you say "syntax," do you mean linguistically or metaphorically? And are you speaking of sequence?
I'm speaking of a set of structural rules that are used to interpret reality from our observations.


At what point in the relation (which, according to your formulation, must be temporal) might an alleged "interference" take place so that "our ability to make deductions" would thereby be foiled?
ANY point. In the case of water-to-wine, the photons that mediate your interaction with the water/wine substance may have been supernaturally manipulated such to give the appearance of a water-to-wine transformation, or memory may have been altered after the fact, or...? ANY of these possibilities can account for the experience, yet it is impossible to differentiate them objectively since a process of objective differentiation must first assume methodological naturalism to be reliable. In all of those cases, it WASN'T really the water turned to wine, therefore your perceptions would not accurately reflect reality. If its possible that your perceptions can be altered to interpret reality incorrectly at any time and for any duration of time, theories of reality proceeding from the set of all observations will be also inherently flawed. For that reason we must only rely on observations that do not depend on who's doing the observing.



That's because, so far, nothing you've asserted merits anything more than a counter-assertion. When you begin to make a substantive argument, then I'll be enabled to reply in kind. One step at a time....
Replying in kind? If you'll review this thread you'll see that I've answered all of your questions directly, yet you've done nothing but dodge mine. "In kind" indeed.



Why should I do your work for you? I prefer to let you make your own case.
Dodge.



No; you've only been annoying and vacuous. Thoughtful of you to ask, though....
Note that you're the first to resort to personal attacks.



Re: Is my personal worldview irrelevant to this discussion:

No, it's not.
Yes, it is. It doesn't even matter if you're a Christian or not. Your personal worldview is likewise irrelevant to the discussion since this discussion is about IDEAS and not the particular people that hold them (despite your best efforts at ad hominem).


Are you a pantheist? Perhaps you see the hole you've dug for yourself and are trying to elude it? Whatever your criteria for evaluating whether an assumption like theism or supernature is falsifiable or not, the same must be applied to whatever assumptions you yourself embrace within your own worldview. I presume you want to exclude certain kinds of supernature from your methodology on the grounds that they are unfalsifiable, yet you also seem to want to falsify them. Theory and praxis. Yet, is naturalism falsifiable? Is pantheism?
Both are falsifiable. The demonstrated existence of supernatural effects or entities would falsify naturalism. The demonstrated existence of a God existing seperate from the universe would falsify pantheism. Falsifying pantheism would not necessarily falsify naturalism, however, and vice versa.




This elusive response won't save you. Again, how can the rhetorical positing of a "claimed supernatural entity" serve to "demonstrate" that all other "claimed supernatural entities" are "unfalsifiable?"
Elusive? That's about as direct and to-the-point as a statement can be. If you think my statements are false, please show me instead of telling me. Describe for us how you would objectively differentiate the supernatural interference of the trickster god and that of the Christian God. Quit dodging the question. Another way to think about the question is: What reason do we have to trust an entity with this type of power over us? We simply take It as It’s Word? What method do you have for discerning whatever inscrutable purpose an entity such as this may have? How do you know you haven't been tricked? You can't.




No, that is rather the point you have apparently failed to make thus far. If your points remain vague and inconsistent, you'll need to clarify them a bit. (Look at your previous posts a little more carefully, and you'll {I hope} see what I mean). Under what precise criteria are some "claimed supernatural entities" falsifiable and others not?
I misspoke in response to your misrepresentation of my purpose. I’m not trying to falsify supernatural claims as you maligned, I’m pointing out that the inherent unfalsifiability of supernatural claims renders them meaningless in trying to construct any theory of reality.




No. Perception, whatever its process, may be subject to various sorts of interference and manipulation from all sorts of entities, whether natural or supernatural, but perception isn't thereby rendered "meaningless." You'll have to do better than that....
Well I suppose they might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, however your subjective feelings about the existence of an entity you claim to experience have no bearing on the actual instantiation of that entity in reality.




How about something to substantiate your assertions? Why and how are certain postualtions of gods unfalsifiable and meaningless and others not?
Because not all gods are supernatural. The pantheistic God is the natural universe.




What evaluative criteria do you propose? Exactly what definitions do you employ?
I define “meaningful observation” as that which can be observed repeatedly and reliably when assuming methodological naturalism. All other observations step outside the bounds of objective measurement and become subjective.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 09:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74879#post74879)
Gavin:

Garth,

[quote]It looks like you have something of an assumption there yourself - that we doubt the integrity of our observations BEFORE we believe in miracles.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying we cannot trust our observations once we ALLOW that miracles may happen (here "miracle" is defined as "violation of natural law") since a miracle may have altered our observations such that they infer reality incorrectly.


IOW, it looks like you are already convinced that miracles cannot happen before justifying your reasons for thinking that way.
I'm as convinced that miracles don't happen as I am that my keys will fall to the ground next time I drop them. Aren't you convinced that your keys will fall down when you drop them?

Yours,
Garth

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Here's another experience I had:

A friend and I were going to the bank to use the ATM late one evening. As we pulled up in his car, we saw a lean man with spiked gray hair drive into the parking lot on his motor scooter. While I waited in the car on the passenger side, my friend was at the ATM, and he was having a conversation with the guy who rode the scooter. It was taking a few minutes, but I figured my friend knew this person. (I was to find out later that they had never met before.) My friend started walking away from the other guy back toward the car, but the other fellow followed. Their conversation became heated and the gray haired man began to speak in loud tones, making gestures in the air. That's when I got out of the car.

I was standing outside the passenger door, and they were on the driver's side. I heard the man tell my friend that he was "a man of God" and then affirm that my friend needed to be tested. He pulled out a cigarette and a lighter, threatening that a "real man of God wouldn't burn." He wanted to light the cig and see if it would burn my friend. My friend reached out suddenly and grabbed the cig out of the guy's hand, throwing it on the ground. The guy was outraged. I was sure there was going to be a fight, so I started moving to the other side of the car. Before I could get over there, however, the guy rushed toward my friend with his fists, drawing back for a swing. Immediately my friend yelled for him to stop "in the name of Jesus Christ," and, before the guy could land a punch, his fist froze in midswing. He appeared to struggle angrily with the very air, as if an unseen restraint were placed upon his arms.

As the guy struggled, I told my buddy to get in the car. I did the same. The very second our doors closed, the guy was free; he rushed to the car and his fists pummelled the roof. He pounded upon it, screaming. As we drove away, he shrieked, "Take your Jesus and die!" We unrolled the window and countered that we'd take Him and live.


____________________________________________________

And now---a word about Garth and his sceptical objections:

Garth has been making fairly traditional sceptical objections couched in technical garb. I am going to respond to them in time, but I want to preface my remarks with a few simple observations. Namely, Garth wants to impose certain rules upon human perception and how we interpret reality. He wants to argue for a theoretical postion and then insist that anything outside the boundaries of that position be excluded from consideration of what is true or real. He will say that, because these rules must hold, I really didn't see what I think I saw in my above experience, that it couldn't have really happened---simply because his theoretical position states that such things can't happen. I, of course, reject this line of reasoning. The most obvious grounds for rejecting it is that it is epistemologically hegemonic, or, put more straightforwardly, his theoretical position tries to impose arbitrary controls upon what may be admitted as genuine perception or knowledge according to a predetermined set of biases. The biases are precisely identical to the rules, so that the game is rigged from the beginning. But I'd no more submit to naturalistic rules than I would acquiesse to naturalism itself; indeed, the two are pretty much the same.

So, when you read the posts to come, no matter how technical or convoluted the language becomes, remember the simple fact that what Garth is arguing for is an illicit attempt at epistemological hegemony in that he wants to control the limits of human perception and cognition according to his own biases---not even admitting anything outside the bounds of his predetermined theoretical position for consideration. It will be easy to lose sight of this primary point in the obfuscatory surge of technical language that awaits us, but, you my reader, you must not allow yourself to be thus lulled to sleep.

Also, though to a sceptic like Garth, all that will matter is exchanging points and counterpoints about the prescribed limits of what may be admitted as true perception and knowledge, there is really more going on with what we shall discuss. In keeping with this, I shall be doing more than simply exchanging points about epistemology, methodological naturalism, structuralism ,etc. I shall continue to speak of experience as if it mattered, because it does matter---even if the objects of one's experience violate the biases of the sceptic. In fact, perhaps experience matters most when the biases of the sceptic are violated.

I have seen what I have seen, and, in most cases, neither I nor anyone else who has had such experiences will be concerned very much with a contrary insistence upon naturalism or any other kind of methodological, hegemonic doubt.