My Take On Jesus

[Tigger]

but you over interpret them because of this one first acid experience that seems to have set the whole "joy experiences" as "being in presence of God/jesus/holy spirit" and the other confirmation you've made to yourself is that the bible describe feelings of peace and joy as being "the presence of God" wich you were already biased for since you were already a baptist.

Confirmation bias is one possible interpretation of my experiences. If I were basing this on one experience 40 years ago, this is might be more likely. I can only say that for almost 40 years, the sense of the presence of God hasn't left. It is different than the experience of hearing beautiful music or seeing natural or man-made beauty, which we all have in one degree or another. It is a sense of the divine, of an internal presence of a person of higher order. It can be captivating at times. You know what it is like to experience the presence of another person with whom you are familiar. Now abstract that feeling and internalize it, and add a sense of awe, and that is fair description of the phenomenon.

Of course, all experience is in the brain, and no doubt brain chemicals are responsible for the immediate effects. The question for me is what causes the experience to begin with, and the early Christian writings come closest to describing what I feel. So I go with that interpretation.

Chemicals. It's chemicals all the way down.

[Surendra Darathy]

I can only say that for almost 40 years, the sense of the presence of God hasn't left.

Yeah, but the whole "spoon bending" thing has never really gotten up to speed. Of course, I realize that spoon bending is not among the benefits promised us in the contract.

It doesn't take light long to travel a few thousand miles, so no law of physics would have to be violated.

Unfortunately the peak emission of the living human body is in the infrared at around 310 K. That's with the mouth wide open and the tongue stuck out, and this is badly swamped by a standard atmosphere at 298 K. The fact that you need to be kissing-close to detect this "presence" is why you need infrared goggles if you go hunting other humans at night. After the body dies, it tends to get progressively cooler until it achieves thermal equilibrium with the refrigerated locker at the morgue.

So, yeah, some laws of physics would have to be violated. 21 grams and all that rot. Cue Hamlet in the graveyard and the speech about Yorick.

My take on Jesus is that it is a personal matter.

Chemicals. It's chemicals all the way down.

At least as far as maintaining black body emission at 310 K. Eat your Wheaties!

My experiences of a divine presence over the past four decades have nothing to do with drug induced emotions.

You've had it pointed out repeatedly that the body generates its own chemicals, a lot of which interact with the brain, sometimes to very pronounced effect. It all comes from eating your Wheaties, IOW, by bread alone.

I don't even seek these experience out all the time - sometimes they just come.

Yeah, me too. But since I'm not trying to maintain a confirmation bias, I call them something other than "God". I call them "emotions" or "brain farts". All of which is to say that, had I been raised a Muslim, I would be hearing the voice of Allah whispering in my ears. And which is to say I am always a bit skeptical when I hear a story that starts out, "I used to be an atheist, but...."

It is perfectly fine for you to be skeptical, and you can interpret it any way you want. I'm not trying to convince anyone - just discussing something that is interesting to me.

Well, I'm personally fascinated by the physiology and anatomy of *(%$(^&_)*_*(*+* and %^#$^%#*%%(*, but decorum prevents me from bringing the subject up with what are essentially strangers to my acquaintance, at least in threads in a subforum labeled "Serious Stuff". This is what perplexes me. I would put it in a subforum labeled "Flighty Stuff" if I were the ruler of the effing universe. There's nothing ineffable about the effing universe, or it would be called the "ineffing" universe.

The NT is evidence of the facts that it asserts, at least in those writings that relate eyewitness testimony or researched historical narrative.

There's a small but significant difference between stating that as a fact, as you have done above, and stating it as "Unlike about a billion Muslims, I and millions of practitioners of Christian confirmation bias regard the NT as evidence of the facts that it asserts." And I am about as eager to accept it as "evidence", sensu strictu, as I am to have an impacted wisdom tooth extracted through my ear canal. However, if it works for you, go in peace, my brother.

[Bruce Burleson]

go in peace, my brother.

Yeah, I think I will. I've enjoyed the discussion. Blessings to you all. Adios, amigos.

[Andrew]

go in peace, my brother.

Yeah, I think I will. I've enjoyed the discussion. Blessings to you all. Adios, amigos.

(Andrew): What!? That's it?

[Tigger]

go in peace, my brother.

Yeah, I think I will. I've enjoyed the discussion. Blessings to you all. Adios, amigos.

(Andrew): What!? That's it?

I doubt it.

[Oldskeptic]

Perhaps Bruce is experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance and feels the need to mentally regroup his thoughts? He has received a lot of information in this thread and been challenged by rational reasonable arguments.

I have wondered why such people as Bruce come to forums like this and expose themselves to skeptical arguments if they truly believe, but are not on a mission to condemn or recruit.

Are they trying to prove something to themselves? Are they unsure of their internal arguments and want to test them out on those that would challenge them?

I don’t really enjoy trying to tear down people like Bruce’s walls if they are happy within them and are not causing harm to others with their beliefs, but they do come of their own volition.

[LaMont Cranston]

Oldskeptic, It's pretty easy, especially for the skeptical, to want to give a rather generalized psychoanalysis about why certain individuals and groups behave as they do. I only speak for myself, not Bruce or anybody else, and, yes, I joined this forum by my own volition because their are subjects being discussed in which I'm greatly interested.

From my first post, I made it clear that I'm a theist, a writer and a seeker of knowledge. I also consider myself to be a rational thinker. I think that rational thinkers are better equipped to deal with controversial ideas, opinions, beliefs, etc. than confused, irrational thinkers. Weak thinkers, whether they be believers or non-believers, tend to get defensive, uptight and have emotional meltdowns when their ideas are challenged. Strong thinkers welcome the challenge.

Simply because somebody, including myself, makes the claim that they are rational doesn't make it so. Richard Dawkins, "The High Priest of Rationality," revealed himself to be thin-skinned, emotion-driven, uptight, disloyal and irrational. From what I've seen, atheism doesn't have a monopoly on rationality.

As for condemning and/or recruiting, why would I give a shit? If, as a theist, I wish to condemn atheists, I hardly need a forum such as this to do that. It turns out that I have found a lot to like in the so-called "new atheism," and I have more in common with many atheists than I do with many of the fundie types. If I had the goal of recruiting you or others, what's in it for me? I've saved the soul that you don't think exists? I've converted another human being to playing for our team?

Whether you want to believe it or not, I think that organized religions have made huge mistakes by attempting to recruit and convert others. It doesn't work very well, and it's a lot of work. There are many things in life that we get to decide for ourselves, and our belief about the existence or non-existence of God is one of those things. So is our take on Jesus. My take is that Jesus was a very cool and righteous guy. See you around...

[Pombolo]

How do you know how you would react if Jesus did all that in front of you? Instead, I think you would leave your nets and follow him. My speculation about that is as valid as yours.

There you go again - willfully misinterpreting analogies in a literal way, whilst using analogies yourself with ease. The point I was making is that a claim and an explanation of that claim are separate things. Proving the claim does not prove the explanation. I find it hard to believe that you didn't get that - but of course, this analogy doesn't suit you, so you mendaciously take it to be a literal imagining of what would happen.

If Jesus did all that, and then taught that his power came from his Father who was in heaven and that he was his Father's Son, that would be the proper place to start as far as an explanation of the events were concerned.

Of course it would. My claim was that the feats would not in themselves prove the explanation. Do remember that I was originally responding to this from you: "If I make the case for Jesus first, the case for God follows." Sorry, no it doesn't. Notice how you have now changed your line to "... that would be the proper place to start as far as an explanation of the events were concerned."

How much more proof could God give than actually working in front of you?

But, in this example, it wouldn't be God. That was the whole point. It would be the works of a man who claimed his power came from a God.

If a scientist conducts a successful experiment, to whom do we first look for an explanation? To the scientist himself.

Yes, because the scientist would be the one who manifestly did it. That explanation could then be subjected to repetition and recreation. That's much more than a claim of 'Well, I'm the son of this supernatural entity'. Notice also that I never made mention of my personal recation. I claimed that demonstrations would not prove the explanation of the demonstrations. My personal reaction would be irrelevant.

I will use the word "irrational" instead of "arational"...[snip]... When that happens, I expect you to run to my defense.

Gladly. If that particular atheist can't distinguish what various words entail, that's their problem.

I didn't think I was being a smart-ass. I thought I was pointing out the fact that you had missed a third option. It's not irrelevant, it challenging you to look at your own assumptions, which apparently you aren't willing to do.

Then why did I accept that I was using a binary definition - which is what you claimed I was using. Again, I was making the point that you deliberately do not pay attention to analogies: you simply take them at face value and then try to refute them. I made the point that there was in fact (in the colour analogy) no third option... and I explained why. Something is either black, or it is not black. It is either white, or it is not white. Not being white encompasses all other options other than white. You tries to rephrase this as 'Well, I can see black as one option, and white as another: and then I can see all these other colours as well.' Do you see how that looks like a smart-ass trying to sound more profound? Maybe that's just how it seems to me, but there seems to be a deliberate attempt from you to not pay atention to any analogy that does not suit you.

For your information, I have a history with Surendra that goes back about 3 years. You shouldn't read too much into my responses to him/her/it.

I didn't read too much into anything. I responded to an exact point that you made to a precise analogy Surendra made. You're so fraggin' frustrating when you do this :twisted: I mean that in a half-joking way, but it's almost as if you are reading someone else's responses. Your history with Surendra has no impact on that point.

My statement referred to the epistles of Paul. The only miracle of Jesus that he mentions is the resurrection itself. While I acknowledge that references to the resurrection will not be convincing to anyone apart from a personal revelatory experience, the historical value of his statements on that subject equals that of his other statements about Jesus.

Understood.

"Magical" assumes that there is no natural, scientific explanation that could ever be given to Jesus' miracles. There may be physical laws that we know nothing about that were in play when Jesus healed people. Magical is simply another example of the a priori assumptions that you rely upon in attempting to build an argument based on derision. This makes me question my agreement to go with your use of "irrational," but I have made a commitment and shall stick to it.

When I used magical in that way, I was keeping in mind Arthur C. Clarke's 'definition'. Given what you have elaborated on, I will use your definition, since I did not alight on this word out of derision. I don't mean this to be a soppish quid pro quo, I think that your definition suits this discussion better.

Pombolo wrote:
So if someone growing up in a different religious culture had similar experiences (with pagan alternatives replacing the name Jesus) and the feelings were every bit as intense, meaningful, and supported in their ancient writings: they would just be wrong?

I am in no position to make any claims about anyone else's experiences, and do not do so. I am simply relating my experiences and the basis for my Christian faith. In the end, everyone has to judge his/her own experience.

I asked because your personal experience seems to have convinced you of a Christian reality. If you are now saying that everyone has to judge their experience - do you accept the possibility that your experience could have misled you? I sounds like you are avoiding the question: either your experience was correct and authentic - which would make any contradictory experience from a non-Christian divine source incorrect. Or you do not wish to 'judge' other people's experiences, in which case theirs could be the correct revelation and yours not. Can you be so sure of your own experience, and then have such an open-minded approach to other peoples' contradictory experiences?

My point was only that the person experiencing is the least equipped to evaluate the objective value of an experience. As for further enlightenment... dare I say that perhaps there is no grand explanation or enlightenment?

So, if you fall in love with someone, you should not evaluate your own experience, but should follow the advice of someone else about whether or not you should marry that person

And another misconstrued statement. (I keep re-reading what i write each time you do this, and I really don't think that I am being too obtuse in my explanations). No Bruce, my personal experience of love does not say anything about the objective reality I inhabit. They are personal expereinces inside my skull. This backs up what I said: feelings are evidence of feelings. This is not the same as having an experience which contradicts or invalidates reality, and then proclaiming that the experience in any way informs us of that reality.

Many believers use the love analogy without realising how much it works against them. By using love as an example you are tacitly likening your revelations/experiences to something that happens inside your head only. But most believers do not believe that this is all their faith is. They believe that the objective reality they live within is connected to their revelations/experiences. The moment this is questioned the believer then retreats to 'Well, it was just a personal experience'. Yes, but that's not ALL you think it is though, is it? You also believe that it is a revelation/experience of something actually real.

I disagree that the person experiencing the phenomenon is the least equipped - he is the only one who knows what the experience was like.

I agree completely. You are the best person to tell me what that experience felt like. But you are the worst person to decide what that says about reality - since you were within the experience.


I don't mean to bang on and on about the analogy thing Bruce, but I feel that it's almost as if you are preserving your view first, and only then reading the analogies. I've come across this before, from believers, and that is the best understanding that I can come up with. Analogies are designed to not be literally true, but to illustrate a point which can then be applied back onto the example of what was originally being said. When someone treats the analogy as if that is the point, it can be... frustrating.

[DuckPhup]

Sorry to be joining this so late. I see that I have become, in part, the subject of this thread.

I have mentioned my experience a few times, on the internet, in varying levels of detail. Having seen the mention that I might backtrack or deny the experience, I decided to simply reference my previous posts, so that anyone who is interested can see what I've had to say about it.

I would like to point-out that if somebody came to me, presenting the narrative that I have presented, I would not believe them... so I have no reason to expect that anybody will believe me. I would expect my knowing that it happened to be irrelevant to anybody else.

• SEPTEMBER, 2007
  http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... r_now.html
  Search the page for 'Taipei'. There are two instances. I think this is where somebody found the abbreviated version, and posted it in this thread.
  
  JANUARY, 2007
  http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... ith_1.html
  Again, search the page for 'Taipei'. (If you search for 'DuckPhup' you'll be overwhelmed with hits.) Bruce may have encountered the story here... but if he did, he did not comment on it here. Bruce does pop-up here as a commenter... but I don't think this is where his memory of the story comes from.

I know that I posted the complete version of my experience (as in Jan. 2007, above) in some forum or other, where Bruce and I (and other members) had a pretty good back-and-forth on the subject. That was probably in 2006 or 2007. However, I can't turn-up that exchange in any of the search-engines... so I guess whatever forum that was is now defunct.

I looked over what I had posted, and I would not change it. It stands as-is. I do recollect that (in the aforementioned forum-exchange, I think), it is easy to understand why serious investigation of such phenomena would be confoundingly difficult... perhaps even impossible... considering their unpredictable and fleeting, transient nature. Still, I guess I would be very encouraged to learn that at least some such accounts are taken seriously, and perhaps labeled as 'credible, but inexplicable' rather than 'nonsense' or ‘delusional’ or ‘bullshit’.

Part of the problem with this is that these kinds of experiences... at least those that might be indicative of something that is actually going on... are unpredictable. There would seem to be no reasonable or practical way to set up a meaningful experiment for investigatory purposes. And, of course, things are complicated by the fact that legitimate accounts are inevitably buried in mountains of total bullshit. How many might actually BE credible? One in ten?... one in a thousand?... one in ten thousand? None? Who knows?

If there ever IS a discovery of an explanation that might account for such events, I would expect it to occur in a physics lab, by serendipitous accident, and having to do with work that is totally unrelated to trying to explain such phenomena. As the physicists are gathering for a beer, after a particularly rewarding day at the lab, discussing the potential implications of their findings, one of them says "Hey... I wonder if this might not be an explanation for those anecdotal stories we hear about people seeming to have instant knowledge of distant events..."

[Bruce Burleson]

I had bowed out of this thread, which I started, but now that Duckphup has made his appearance, I'm interested again. I understand why he says that he would not believe it if someone else told him a story similar to his own. That is Hume's influence on rational thought - it's more likely that a report of a "miracle" is mistaken than it is that it is true. That idea usually goes unchallenged, but it does have some underlying assumptions that might not be valid. The fact is that we do not know everything and we do not understand how everything works. The instantaneous transmission and reception of knowledge might have an explanation in terms of the laws of physics, if we knew what all those laws were. So might healings and resurrections. So instead of automatically rejecting reports of such events, the proper rational response is to keep an open mind, and wait for further evidence.

For the person who experiences the event, however, it appears to me to be perfectly rational to accept it. Duckphup is a non-believer, so he certainly is not attempting to use his experience as a basis for arguing that others should believe. In all my encounters with him, he has appeared perfectly rational and level-headed. He has simply had an experience that is currently not capable of being explained. He verified the experience and stands by it. I see no reason to reject his testimony. He has given some evidence of the instantaneous transmission of information. The laws of physics may have to be revisited to make room for this evidence.

From my perspective, experiences like these make the claims of the miraculous a little less....., well, miraculous. There's a lot of exotic stuff out there, and it is arrogant to scoff at the anecdotal evidence that exists. I wouldn't expect anyone to fall on his face before the altar and confess faith in Jesus. A little more humility about the possibility of divine existence and intervention would be refreshing , however.

[DuckPhup]

I had bowed out of this thread, which I started, but now that Duckphup has made his appearance, I'm interested again. I understand why he says that he would not believe it if someone else told him a story similar to his own. That is Hume's influence on rational thought - it's more likely that a report of a "miracle" is mistaken than it is that it is true. That idea usually goes unchallenged, but it does have some underlying assumptions that might not be valid."

Bullshit. It IS more likely that a report of a 'miracle' is mistaken (more likely, fraudulent) than it is to be true. You say "... that has some underlying assumptions that might not be valid". To that, I add another bullshit. Tell me, please... how many reports of 'miracles' have been credibly certified to be genuine? What are they? Where is the corroborating evidence? (If you see those questions as an excuse and justification to present bible bullshit, or Fatima, please don't bother. That's been done to death.) And WHAT "underlying assumptions [...] might not be valid?"

In one of your posts on this thread, you said that I don't like you. You're right... I don't. I have encountered you on the internet off-and-on for about six years now, give or take... and I've always found you to be both a dishonest, disingenuous interlocutor, and incapable of critical thinking. That paragraph, and this whole post, for that matter, attest to that... and both of those attributes get right up my nose. Early-on, I formed the opinion that you were EITHER stubbornly enamored with the challenge of clinging to your delusions in the face of knowledge, logic, reason, rationality, and critical thinking... OR were a professional (although amateurish in execution) LFJ™ (Liar For Jesus). I DO NOT regard that as a 'false dichotomy'. I don't regard that as an either/or thing anymore, though... but I'll just just keep the outcome to myself.

The fact is that we do not know everything and we do not understand how everything works. The instantaneous transmission and reception of knowledge might have an explanation in terms of the laws of physics, if we knew what all those laws were. So might healings and resurrections. So instead of automatically rejecting reports of such events, the proper rational response is to keep an open mind, and wait for further evidence.

Oh, twaddle. For one thing, you are confusing 'knowledge' with 'information; they are NOT synonymous... and that is NOT just a semantic quibble. Then, you're committing the logical fallacy (flaw in thinking) known as 'category error'. You want to lump together everything that 'seems like a miracle to the ordinary moron', and then you're taking the leap that if any kind of 'miraculous' event is 'possible', then we should consider that all claimed 'miraculous' events should be considered 'possible', and potentially explainable by the laws of physics. For one thing, you fail to consider that what I have described might not even be an "instantaneous transmission and reception of knowledge," except in the most abstract sense. Remember... I described it (as best as I can describe it) as a sudden awareness that a connection I was not aware existed (or even knew was possible) was broken. I was not even capable of formulating that description until about 20-years later. And throughout it all, I have strived to relate to this as an observer, attempting to describe the experience as objectively as I can, without contaminating my report with 'interpretation'.

The proper 'rational response' IS to reject such reports (they are distractions from real work), and perk-up and pay attention only when such reports are accompanied by compelling, credible, corroborated evidence. Funny thing, though... they never are. Not even mine.

For the person who experiences the event, however, it appears to me to be perfectly rational to accept it. Duckphup is a non-believer, so he certainly is not attempting to use his experience as a basis for arguing that others should believe. In all my encounters with him, he has appeared perfectly rational and level-headed. He has simply had an experience that is currently not capable of being explained. He verified the experience and stands by it. I see no reason to reject his testimony. He has given some evidence of the instantaneous transmission of information. The laws of physics may have to be revisited to make room for this evidence.

What I have presented does not stack up as compelling, credible 'evidence', and it should not be counted as such. It is nothing more than an anecdotal account. It might be a particularly compelling anecdotal account... but it is still just an anecdotal account, nonetheless. You say that "... it appears to me to be perfectly rational to accept it"... but it is NOT "... perfectly rational to accept it." At most... IF you deem the account to be credible... you ought only increase your perception that the probability that such things can happen is somewhat higher than ZERO. For me... but only for me (in this specific case)... the probability is about 99.999%. I regard ALL other such accounts with skepticism... but not with as much skepticism as I would have done before it happened to me.

You said "I see no reason to reject his testimony." Well... you should see several reasons to reject my testimony... or at least, to not 'believe' it. 'Belief', in this context (and in the context of gods, religion and the supernatural), is the ILLUSION of knowledge. I might be lying (I'm not... but you can't 'know' that). I might be insane (I'm not... but you can't 'know' that).

Your statement that "The 'laws of physics' may have to be revisited to make room for this evidence" is ridiculous. For one thing, the 'laws of physics' refers to the cartesian/newtonian tick-tock cause-and-effect universe. Those 'laws' are nothing more than consistent mathematical relationships that we have been fortunate enough to 'notice', in nature. The explanation for my experience cannot lie in a tick-tock universe, so there is nothing to be 'revisited' there. Quantum physics? Perhaps. But quantum physics does not describe reality... it merely enables us to predict (with astonishing accuracy) how reality will respond, when we 'poke' it. Quantum theory constructs a model that endeavors to 'explain' what lies behind and beneath that... but there is still quite a lot to explain. Ideas about 'quantum entanglement' are the only things that I can presently see that might lead to some sort of a credible explanation... but how is that 'revisiting'? Or... maybe my experience was just an astonishing, unbelievable coincidence, with a possibility of 1 - in - 10324 of happening, and there is nothing to 'explain'? I don't think that's the case... but I do think that it's a lot more probable than invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairies.

From my perspective, experiences like these make the claims of the miraculous a little less....., well, miraculous. There's a lot of exotic stuff out there, and it is arrogant to scoff at the anecdotal evidence that exists. I wouldn't expect anyone to fall on his face before the altar and confess faith in Jesus. A little more humility about the possibility of divine existence and intervention would be refreshing, however.

So... you think this is 'miraculous'. I do not. I think it is just (presently) inexplicable. I have heard many accounts of similar experiences... and the sheer weight of anecdotal accounts suggests that there is something that ought to be explored. But the problem that I see is that even if there is some credible explanation behind such experiences, it would presently be a waste of time and resources to attempt to study it. I can conceive of no way to set up a controlled experiment to attempt to capture, analyze and explain such nebulous, ephemeral, transient and rare events.

"A little more humility about the possibility of divine essence and intervention" would not be 'refreshing'... it would be toxically, droolingly, stupid. Why? Because everything that we have discovered about nature points away from the idea of 'divine existence and intervention'. With respect to 'healings and ressurections', there are no compelling (or even credible) reasons to think that they are anything other than lies, hallucinations, delusions, or some other form of USDA Grade-A Prime horseshit.

Your post is a dishonest attempt to take an interesting (to some people) anecdote, and employ sophistry to link it to either your lies, or your delusions. Readers can take their pick.

Do not try to play your game with me, Bruce. I will pick you apart, every time. You may think your dishonesty is subtle... and to some people, it might be. But for others?... not so much.

[nonverbal]

Bruce, would you say that Hume was foolish not to trust in the kinds of possibilities you're mentioning? You're certainly welcome to trust in whatever you choose to go with, but keep in mind that Jesus was only one of many miracle workers that plied their trade during his time. Tricking illiterate, superstitious and ignorant people at the time when Jesus lived (assuming for the moment that Jesus is more than a composite literary character) had ancient roots even back then. Magical trickery was no less ubiquitous than it is today. The Duckphup effect, as its author acknowledges in his post above, is uncommonly difficult to expose and utilize. He also seems to acknowledge that it may be illusion-based. To expand on that possibility, consider the enormous number of people who get odd hunches every minute of every day. It must be in the millions, every minute. If one hunch comes out valid every so often, how many billions of invalid ones preceded it? A broken clock is accurate twice a day, and the Duckphup effect starts to look pretty silly when examined with Humian skepticism.

[Surendra Darathy]

What I have presented does not stack up as compelling, credible 'evidence', and it should not be counted as such. It is nothing more than an anecdotal account. It might be a particularly compelling anecdotal account... but it is still just an anecdotal account, nonetheless. You say that "... it appears to me to be perfectly rational to accept it"... but it is NOT "... perfectly rational to accept it." At most... IF you deem the account to be credible... you ought only increase your perception that the probability that such things can happen is somewhat higher than ZERO. For me... but only for me (in this specific case)... the probability is about 99.999%. I regard ALL other such accounts with skepticism... but not with as much skepticism as I would have done before it happened to me.

In that case, I think you are equivocating a bit, yourself. If you want to use skepticism as a quantitative measure, I want to hear more about how you do that. You still insist that you had some sort of experience, but equivocate to calling it an "anecdote". Then you claim that your "experience" makes you less skeptical of other such accounts, such as the one Bruce himself tells about his intimate encounter with Jeebus while at college. Then you say that "skepticism" maps to some sort of "probability" that something "can happen", pitched on a very personal level, when there is no means published anywhere with respect to what "can happen", and we only assign a likelihood that something "will happen". You know, like in the weather report.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, since you could have said in much fewer words that, when reciting anecdotes, one needs to offer many disclaimers that it is a personal anecdote, leaving the audience wondering what your motivation was for reciting it in the first place. To say that reciting an anecdote is a proposal that one's skepticism must never be absolute is an old epistemological wibble. Saying "God does not exist" is equivalent to saying "No man steps in the same river twice", and then trying to develop a river-oriented ontology.

After the shameful display represented by this latest exchange, my response is that you and Bruce deserve each other. It's karma! Uncaused events!

Your statement that "The 'laws of physics' may have to be revisited to make room for this evidence" is ridiculous. For one thing, the 'laws of physics' refers to the cartesian/newtonian tick-tock cause-and-effect universe. Those 'laws' are nothing more than consistent mathematical relationships that we have been fortunate enough to 'notice', in nature. The explanation for my experience cannot lie in a tick-tock universe, so there is nothing to be 'revisited' there. Quantum physics? Perhaps. But quantum physics does not describe reality... it merely enables us to predict (with astonishing accuracy) how reality will respond, when we 'poke' it. Quantum theory constructs a model that endeavors to 'explain' what lies behind and beneath that... but there is still quite a lot to explain. Ideas about 'quantum entanglement' are the only things that I can presently see that might lead to some sort of a credible explanation... but how is that 'revisiting'? Or... maybe my experience was just an astonishing, unbelievable coincidence, with a possibility of 1 - in - 10324 of happening, and there is nothing to 'explain'? I don't think that's the case... but I do think that it's a lot more probable than invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairies.

Furthermore, I don't think that butchering quantum mechanics to elaborate an anecdote puts you in any better a light. The probability of what happening? Is the model that a premonition consists of a one-particle event?

Yeah, right. Butchery. Saying our skepticism about ontology must never be complete is one thing. Having complete skepticism about lengthy, elaborate anecdotes, including fish tales, is quite another.

[Bruce Burleson]

Bullshit. It IS more likely that a report of a 'miracle' is mistaken (more likely, fraudulent) than it is to be true. You say "... that has some underlying assumptions that might not be valid". To that, I add another bullshit. Tell me, please... how many reports of 'miracles' have been credibly certified to be genuine? What are they? Where is the corroborating evidence? (If you see those questions as an excuse and justification to present bible bullshit, or Fatima, please don't bother. That's been done to death.) And WHAT "underlying assumptions [...] might not be valid?"

I don't know how many reports of miracles have been credibly certified to be genuine. I refer you to the account of Joel Osteen's mother being healed of cancer - you can read her book and the certifications of her doctors that are contained in it.
Here's a link: http://books.google.com/books?id=62MEAA ... CCcQ6AEwCQ

The assumption that Hume makes that might be invalid is that a miracle or uncommon event is just that, uncommon. It might be that under the right set of circumstances, instantaneous transmissions of information, healings and resurrections would be the order of the day. There might be a dimension in which such things are the norm, and that the realities in such a dimension
are capable of being experienced here. If that is the case, then an underlying assumption of Hume is not valid, and reports of miracles or unexplained events should not be met with the skepticism that is typical of most posters on this forum. I consider your report of your experience to be evidence, not a mere anecdote to be dismissed.

In one of your posts on this thread, you said that I don't like you. You're right... I don't. I have encountered you on the internet off-and-on for about six years now, give or take... and I've always found you to be both a dishonest, disingenuous interlocutor, and incapable of critical thinking. That paragraph, and this whole post, for that matter, attest to that... and both of those attributes get right up my nose. Early-on, I formed the opinion that you were EITHER stubbornly enamored with the challenge of clinging to your delusions in the face of knowledge, logic, reason, rationality, and critical thinking... OR were a professional (although amateurish in execution) LFJ™ (Liar For Jesus). I DO NOT regard that as a 'false dichotomy'. I don't regard that as an either/or thing anymore, though... but I'll just just keep the outcome to myself.

Forgive me for believing you. I assume that you are honest and are telling the truth - you experienced the instantaneous transmission of information, and confirmed it by your own investigation. Your account is evidence of the phenomenon.

For one thing, you are confusing 'knowledge' with 'information; they are NOT synonymous... and that is NOT just a semantic quibble. Then, you're committing the logical fallacy (flaw in thinking) known as 'category error'. You want to lump together everything that 'seems like a miracle to the ordinary moron', and then you're taking the leap that if any kind of 'miraculous' event is 'possible', then we should consider that all claimed 'miraculous' events should be considered 'possible', and potentially explainable by the laws of physics. For one thing, you fail to consider that what I have described might not even be an "instantaneous transmission and reception of knowledge," except in the most abstract sense. Remember... I described it (as best as I can describe it) as a sudden awareness that a connection I was not aware existed (or even knew was possible) was broken. I was not even capable of formulating that description until about 20-years later. And throughout it all, I have strived to relate to this as an observer, attempting to describe the experience as objectively as I can, without contaminating my report with 'interpretation'.

I agree with you that I should have used "information" instead of knowledge. That was a mistake. You described it, as I remember, as a sudden realization that your father was dead, and you confirmed it. It was not an expected event, as I recall, and you were thousands of miles away. You later confirmed that he died right at the time you had the experience. Am I wrong?

The proper 'rational response' IS to reject such reports (they are distractions from real work), and perk-up and pay attention only when such reports are accompanied by compelling, credible, corroborated evidence. Funny thing, though... they never are. Not even mine.

This is where we disagree. In your case, I think the proper rational response is to consider your report as evidence of the instantaneous transmission of information, and then look for an explanation.

What I have presented does not stack up as compelling, credible 'evidence', and it should not be counted as such. It is nothing more than an anecdotal account. It might be a particularly compelling anecdotal account... but it is still just an anecdotal account, nonetheless. You say that "... it appears to me to be perfectly rational to accept it"... but it is NOT "... perfectly rational to accept it." At most... IF you deem the account to be credible... you ought only increase your perception that the probability that such things can happen is somewhat higher than ZERO. For me... but only for me (in this specific case)... the probability is about 99.999%. I regard ALL other such accounts with skepticism... but not with as much skepticism as I would have done before it happened to me.

You seem to accept it, and I see no reason to think that you are lying or crazy or even mistaken. As an atheist, your account qualifies as a statement against interest. Even here, knowing that a theist is making use of your story, you stick by it. All of that makes it even more convincing to me.

[colubridae]

Bruce and duckpuhup.

All this banter is just foreplay.

Get a room guys.