You're saying when and if a garden fork wackes you in the head when its stood on isn't a natural event. Perhaps your right. Who left the thing lying there any how?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Experiencing God
- Thread starter Sonofason
- Start date
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Sure it is, it all happened in nature, is made of natural materials, etc. It wasn't a supernatural event. Even if someone left it there, they were a natural entity. I'm still waiting for anyone to demonstrate that there's any such thing as the supernatural.
Of course everything is held to be natural, it would be difficult to make any sense of it all otherwise. But there seems to be a lot of striving and designing to break away from what is natural and to be protected from it when it gets out of order.
But the atoms are positioned and manifested instantly making them seen and as the scripture says God wears light as with a garment. We have our being and presence in God and he gives insight.
It is all placed here so we can have our natural environment and it is taken for granted.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Which is all ludicrous. Everything is held to be natural because that's all we actually have any evidence for. Nobody has any actual evidence for the existence of the supernatural. People who claim that the supernatural exists can provide no evidence that it's actually so, only a book that makes equally empty claims about it. Sorry, that's no more impressive than saying leprechauns did it because someone has a Holy Book of Leprechauns. Your book doesn't impress anyone who doesn't already believe in your book. Your scriptures are meaningless to anyone who doesn't already have faith in your scriptures. Either you can demonstrate the existence of the supernatural or you cannot. If you cannot, then why should anyone take it seriously? It's like demanding magic is real because it's in the Harry Potter books.
When my journey of understanding began there was no interest in religion at all and nothing was known about the book the Bible. It was all placed in my mind as a complete concept spontaneously. My mind was opened up to another mind over 5 seconds and much information was accessed very quickly. When I read the Bible enough was understood to say what came into my mind is very similar. But there are also aspects shown of a technology that compliment and indicate a need to try something supernatural to access the other mind permanently.
There are others who gain information they have never learned and could never. It is a bit perplexing to the established ideas in science and there are studies done on this subject.
It is my understanding that this is a supernatural event. But can it be used to produce something in the natural world then making it natural to the unenlightened. It is obvious to me now that there is a supernatural effect closing off the natural mind and generally closing down thinking capability. It is quite natural to see dumb humans doing stupid things, even those with obvious intelligence. I am uncertain if there is a adequate test for this.
Some say everything is known and over a century ago there were some who said the Patent office was no longer needed. But time moves on and now that technology has given access to fine detail and measurement and recording with much information not many will be able to hold an overview of what it all means. The future is more interesting than the past.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
I think it all comes down to that exact sentence so that's what I'm going to address because it addresses the real problem. How do you know that it is a supernatural event? Where did you get that information? Just being unable to explain it naturally only leaves you with an event that you cannot explain. You are not saying you do not understand the cause, you are saying that it was caused by something supernatural. How do you know?
That's really where we get the problem. Not understanding a cause is not a license to just make something up.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I think he was just agreeing with you using different words.So you disagree with the "teach a man to fish and you feed him for life" school of thought, eh?
You seem to have a robust fantasy life. You wouldn't happen to have a rational basis for any of this, would you?
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I don't make that argument. I have evidence of God, because I experience God directly. You say there is no God because you have not experienced God. I am making an argument from personal evidence and personal knowledge. You are suggesting I'm wrong because you have seen no proof that I'm right. That is an argument from ignorance.
Supernatural definition, of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural;
unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
It is natural to learn over many years some what laboriously but to know more in 5 seconds could be unnatural but I call this a supernatural event. I am able to explain it completely but no one has the ability to understand by hearing.
It would be better for others to try what has been shown but there is no willingness because it involves the mind.
I have willingly done some dangerous things but this could seem more so but not in reality.
There is another dimension to this existence and some people are drawn through the barrier.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Show me anything supernatural. Provide objective evidence. If you can't, how do you know that anything supernatural actually exists. This is the problem.
Something is required to make it happen. If nothing is done nothing will happen.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Says who? Where are you getting this information? You're just asserting things, you are not demonstrating them. You need to take a serious step back and evaluate your claims rationally and critically. How do you know the things that you are claiming to know?
When I was quite young science said that life should not exist. And then there was the time of the discovery that people liked ice cream and it could be proven. There are many others.
Is this what you mean
What is being advocated is not just a change of mind it is something more powerful.
God is able to reach any person where they stand for good or for evil. If God is close evil will flee if God withdraws completely then life would not exist at all.
The only reason there is any life is because God gives of His Spirit. Explain life in your own words where does the active ingredient come from and why does it leave.
If there is no life force then nothing lives. The mind of man has a corrupting influence in the self empowerment of the personality and this diminishes the life force with rebellious behavior and there is aging and death.
Where will mans' behavior lead? The evidence is within and around you. As close as your own self, family, colleges, communities, nations.
It seems like everyone is fully armed up and ready. There will be a big demonstration.
No, I took your previous post to be an argument from ignorance because you didn't mention any evidence and worded it badly.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
This is the comment you're referring to. I said:
"It is apparent to me that you have no explanation for what causes the experiences that many people claim are experiences of God. And that's fine. But it makes a great deal less sense to suggest without any evidence whatsoever that the experience is not indeed an experience of God. In view of this lack of knowledge on your part, I feel most inclined to continue believing that what I have perceived to be an experience of God is indeed an experience of God. That is indeed the more rational approach."
Now, please point out the argument from ignorance.
The argument from ignorance was where you suggested a conclusion "without any evidence whatsoever"... however, as you've since explained, you didn't actually mean "without any evidence whatsoever"; you had in mind a situation where there was evidence for your claim but no evidence against it.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Yes, I have evidence for my claim, but sadly I am incapable of sharing that evidence in any observable way.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Then there isn't actually any evidence.
Be that as it may, whatever you experienced isn't the whole story... it can't be.
I've mentioned this before - going from personal experience to the conclusion of God is actually a 3-step process:
1. I experienced something.
2. The something I experienced is better explained by something outside my head than not (e.g. hallucination, mistake, mental illness, etc.)
3. The thing outside my head that best explains the something I experienced is God.
The only step in this process that is only accessible by you is step 1. You may not be the best judge of steps 2 or 3, and if your conclusion that you experienced God is correct, then anyone should be able to listen to your description of what you experienced and, taking all that as given, figure out a logical chain that ends up with God.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
That is exactly where these claims fall apart. All anyone can do is make a claim about an experience that they had. They never bother to actually test that claim beyond having an experience, they then leap to an unsupported and unjustified conclusion that somehow, this thing that they cannot even demonstrate exists was responsible for the experience. How do they know? They don't! They just want it to be true, There is absolutely no demonstrable causal link between the experience and the supposed cause. They have no better reason to suspect that "God did it" than "unicorns did it". That's why all of these claims about experiences being evidence are immediately worthless, they're just making empty claims about things for which they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.