V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (03/12/85)
<> Dear Keebler, I haven't forgot about you or miracles or the supernatural. I came across a good apolgetics book circa 1958 (Theological Happy Days:-) ) that is useful BUT unfortunatly some of the basic arguments appeal to the dispelling of reasonable doubt. If the reader is entirely convinced that God and therfore the supernatural are non-existant then NO MATTER what the apologeticist says will have no affect NO MATTER how persuasive the philosophical or metaphysical arguments. From the tone of your articles I am fairly convinced that you are as committed to your position as I am to mine. I've been mulling over my postings and I see no great problems with them given what Christians use as reasonable arguments and reasonable evidence. Indeed the miracles at Lourdes and St.Anne's in Quebec ARE offered as evidence of God, The Virgin and the Spirit and of course Christ since the Virgin was His mother. Most books on apologetics are LENGTHY with great care used to shore up even minor points of deduction and/or inference. Since I can't write a book nor could I post one the reader needs to bear with short explanations occassionally filling a few blanks. I do the same for the opposition. Now short of inventing a God-meter or finding a spot on earth where we can cross to the other side AND RETURN to tell about it, there is nothing I can do prove to you Physically that any of it is true. I don't think that you will accept any metaphysical argument. BTW since the concept of soul is popping up again, the fact that man can explain his OBSERVED nature very elegantly and simply with the existence of a soul does many things: 1. the soul if it exists, needs to be supernatural 2. a soul, being supernatural, cannot have been created by man 3. a soul must have been created by another supernatural being Who is right? Let us observe man. The Christian aplogeticist explanation describes man accurately now and in the past and seems still to be consistent for future use. Even as more physio-chemical knowledge is known about the brain, the conflict between mind and brain and being INTENSIFIES. Our position is still consistent. I'm sticking with ours until the atheist can experimentally verify that the soul and therfore the supernatural DOES NOT exist. I'll keep looking but I think that I am wasting my time. How about giving me a hint on some sort of evidence that you would accept? It will make my research easier. Marchionni
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/14/85)
In article <1646V6M@PSUVM> V6M@PSUVM.BITNET writes: > I'm sticking with ours until the atheist can experimentally verify that > the soul and therfore the supernatural DOES NOT exist. I'm sticking with my "little green man who hides behind my head" theory. Only I can see him, except I can't because he's behind my head. If I try to use a mirror, he hides behind the mirror. This is consistent. You'll have to experimentally verify that he doesn't exist. Remember though, he's sneaky and will hide anywhere. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/14/85)
In article <1646V6M@PSUVM> V6M@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >I've been mulling over my postings and I see no great problems with them >given what Christians use as reasonable arguments and reasonable evidence. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Little or none? >BTW since the concept of soul is popping up again, the fact that man can >explain his OBSERVED nature very elegantly and simply with the existence of >a soul does many things: >1. the soul if it exists, needs to be supernatural >2. a soul, being supernatural, cannot have been created by man >3. a soul must have been created by another supernatural being > >The Christian aplogeticist explanation describes man accurately now and in >the past and seems still to be consistent for future use. Even as more >physio-chemical knowledge is known about the brain, the conflict >between mind and brain and being INTENSIFIES. Our position is still >consistent. The word soul is, I understand, drawn from the Greek word meaning mind. To say that the 'soul' resolves any conflict between mind and brain is, therefore, meaningless. The mind, although still not subject to full explaination, has no need of being supernatural. Unless I have misunderstood what you were saying in the above quote? -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/16/85)
>> I'm sticking with ours until the atheist can experimentally verify that >> the soul and therfore the supernatural DOES NOT exist. [MARCHIONNI] > I'm sticking with my "little green man who hides behind my head" theory. > Only I can see him, except I can't because he's behind my head. If I try > to use a mirror, he hides behind the mirror. > This is consistent. You'll have to experimentally verify that he doesn't > exist. Remember though, he's sneaky and will hide anywhere. [HUYBENSZ] Oh, Mikey. Ever since you had ice cream with god, you're not the same. (What flavor does he like?) The point really is, anybody who has the gall to claim "you must prove that my subjective personal 'realities' do not exist, and that the things I believe to exist without evidential support do not exist", has no interest in reality. Whatsoever. Since the "proof" (to you) that it *does* exist is fraught with flaws, the fact that you choose to believe it indicates that the real world and what's in it are not among your active interests. If they were, you would surely take a more active role in examining the difference between what you choose to believe and what is really out there. P.S. to Scott Deerwester: Now that Mike has talked to god, do you have anything to say about *his* experience? Is *he* a liar, too? Are you being unresponsive precisely because you realize that anything you would say to someone who's had such an experience could just as well be said back to you? And do you thus get the point? -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/17/85)
Rich, You may be being too hard on Marchionni here. He goes off and talks about angels and whtnot which I don't claim to understand anything about, but, for a minute, assume thathe is not lying to you about his subjective religious experience. Okay -- either he is insane or something happened. Now, if you think that net.religion is read primarily by liars and lunatics, then I don't know why you bother. If, on the contrary, you think that something did happen, then his claim to Mike Huybesek was sound. Something happened; I have evidence; you won't accept it because it is subjective; religious experience is always subjective; I defy you to proove that it didn't happen. This is strong stuff. Mike can either accept the claims or leave, but that might be the whole idea. I still don't know why all people, everywhere, don't have religious experiences, but a little voice keeps muttering ``becuase they don't want to, fool!''. Be that as it may, I am still left with the knowledge that either subjective experiences are real, or I am insane. If it pleases you and Mike to think that I am insane, then I can live with this as well -- as long as you don't try to rehabilitate me by force. If I am insane, then I *like* being insane, which is enough for me. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/19/85)
Aiiieeeee! Not the lunatic or liar argument again! In article <5268@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > ... assume thathe is not lying to > you about his subjective religious experience. Okay -- either he is > insane or something happened. Now, if you think that net.religion is > read primarily by liars and lunatics, then I don't know why you bother. > If, on the contrary, you think that something did happen, then his > claim to Mike Huybesek was sound. Once again, there is no need to assume lunacy or fabrication to explain that it is normal for people to have unreal experiences. We all dream, we all imagine, we all can misinterpret, and we all are subject to a host of temporary abnormal behaviors of our brains and sensory systems. We can even reproduce some of these at will in individuals at laboratories. With drugs, hypnosis, perceptual tricks, and other techniques. > Something happened; I have evidence; you won't accept it > because it is subjective; religious experience is always subjective; > I defy you to proove that it didn't happen. This is strong stuff. I believe you when you say something happened. I may not believe your interpretation. Your sighting of a flying saucer may be a phospheme or a weather balloon. Your talks with god may be a dream or something you convinced yourself of. I don't need to disprove that you experienced something. You need to prove to me the reality of your experience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. > Mike can either accept the claims or leave, but that might be the whole > idea. I still don't know why all people, everywhere, don't have religious > experiences, but a little voice keeps muttering ``becuase they don't > want to, fool!''. I'm sure you would like it better if I only accepted your claims or left, but I have another alternative. I can say they're false. By the way, I have had religious experiences. They're quite remarkable. My most recent was three years ago while hiking through the mountains in the Olympic rain forest. It was about an idea I was deriving from "The reakdown of Nations", that there is an optimal size for every form of organization. It was a true epiphany. I've had others in a fair number of other subjects, mostly biology. I imagine that if I was as interested in JC, I'd have experiences about him. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh