What is the Evidential Value of Personal Testimonies?
Many Christian people think that by sharing their personal religious experiences with us that this is some kind of evidence to those of us who don't believe. They claim to know God in a personal way. They claim to feel him, experience him, and so forth and so on. But of what import is that to people who don't believe? Nothing I can see at all.
I would like for these Christians to learn something from Professor Dan Lambert, who is using my book in his class at John Brown University. In his class he makes his students think through my arguments. You see, if I have not had these personal experiences then what value does telling me about them do for me? All I can say is that if I had these experiences then I would believe too. The problem is why God doesn't give me those kinds of experiences. God surely knows what it would take to convince me, okay? If he wanted to convince me he could easily do this and doing so would not depend upon me at all. That I have a stubborn or hard heart does not matter, for if God appeared to me like the Bible says he did to Moses, Gideon, or Paul, then I would believe even if I was not receptive to him.
So when dealing with our arguments do what Prof. Dan Lambert said:
Cheers.
I would like for these Christians to learn something from Professor Dan Lambert, who is using my book in his class at John Brown University. In his class he makes his students think through my arguments. You see, if I have not had these personal experiences then what value does telling me about them do for me? All I can say is that if I had these experiences then I would believe too. The problem is why God doesn't give me those kinds of experiences. God surely knows what it would take to convince me, okay? If he wanted to convince me he could easily do this and doing so would not depend upon me at all. That I have a stubborn or hard heart does not matter, for if God appeared to me like the Bible says he did to Moses, Gideon, or Paul, then I would believe even if I was not receptive to him.
So when dealing with our arguments do what Prof. Dan Lambert said:
"You cannot use the Bible to try to refute his points or to support your own. You must use logic and critical thinking primarily."I'm sure Dan would also say you cannot refute our arguments by referring to personal experiences which we have not had.
Cheers.
86 comments:
John,
You are correct once again. Experiences are a dime a dozen, and do not convince anyone, or prove the existance of God. I think fulfilled prophecy would be much more of a "proof" depending on the verifiability of such.
I was in the "charismatic" movement for many years with tongues, prophecies, healings, etc. Many if not most of the prophesies and healings were doubtful. But I do believe in prophecy and have had some true prophecies. But it is hard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And there is more bathwater than baby, unfortunately.
There is more fools gold than real gold. This is true in the Christian realm as well. 99% of what I watch on TBN is pathetic. That is NOT Christianity. Finding the true and the genuine is rare indeed, I am sorry to admit.
I cannot give you my experience. And I agree, that if everyone had an experience like Paul the apostle, then there would be far fewer atheists and agnostics.
All I can say is that if I had these experiences then I would believe too. I've heard some seriously wacky testimonials. One girl told me that she was locked out of her house late at night and had a vision of a spare set of keys that she left in the shed a few months before. She tells me that she's convinced the vision came from God but I ask whether she might just have remembered where she hid them.
Another person told me that he was visiting his mother who was dying of cancer and while leaving the hospital he had a song in his head which he then heard playing on a radio in a nearby store. He told me that he was sure this was a sign from God that his mother would be accepted to Heaven.
Francis Collins tells of seeing a frozen waterfall and being overcome by a feeling of peace. There are countless other examples and frankly they all strike me as banal and pandering to the self-obsessed. God won't heal people from cancer but will help choose songs on the radio; God won't heal the sick or feed the hungry but He'll save you from having to break a window.
Personally I think you're being far too generous when you say that you'd believe if you had those experiences. At best you might be mystified or puzzled but convinced of a supernatural, benevolent deity? I somehow doubt it.
Perhaps it helps with the short-term dialogue but it also affirms their - what do you call it, delusion? self-obsession? fallacy?
I really like your "outsider test" and think it should be applied here!
(Good to see comments are allowed in some places. Love your writing, love your ideas, love the dialogue your posts motivate!)
You have not performed the experiment of the replicating RNA. You trust the 'testimonial' that is the scientist's data and report on what the data means. To reject Christian 'god' experiences outright as ever being relevant seems unfair. We accept much that we have not personally experienced, based on the experience of and telling by others. You are saying you don't want to hear it because you will never accept it as true. I submit that we should hear it and put it to same tests we do reports from scientific experiences by others such as their experiments or data gathering or observations.
Hi Tyro,
Skepticism is easy, especially when it comes to the claims of healings and prophecies. There is a lot of circus activity in the charismatic circles. I speak from many years of first hand experience. But I have also experienced the genuine, but I know that you cannot just take my word for that, and as John said, I cannot prove God by my experiences.
There are some women that have never had an orgasm. So what is their understanding of an orgasm? How do you explain an orgasm to someone who never had that experience? Maybe they think that it is all in your head, and that you just imagine that you are having an orgasm. Like a placebo effect of some sort. After all, experienced do not prove anything.
So instead of seeking an orgasm during lovemaking, they just go through the sexual experience without ever reaching a climax. No harm done, and mediocrity and passivity prevails.
So why seek God when there is nothing to seek and nothing to experience? It is all just a vain religious imagination. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
DenCol,
So what is their understanding of an orgasm? How do you explain an orgasm to someone who never had that experience? Orgasms are consistent with known biology, substantiated not just testimonials but physiological effects, well described with little doubt or ambiguity and they've even been measured in other animals.
I'm not sure why you brought it up but you're badly mistaken if you think this is a good analog to a belief in God.
@DenCol
You trust the 'testimonial' that is the scientist's data and report on what the data means.I think you're a little confused about the meaning of the word "testimonal" and about the vast differences between a scientific test and reports by a True Believer.
Hi Tyro,
The scientific data does not help a woman who has never had an orgasm to know what an orgasm is! It is one thing to READ about an orgasm in a scientific journal, and quite another thing to actually HAVE an orgasm. So even if I could prove the existance of God scientifically, what difference would that make if you never got to know or experience Him for yourself? It would probably just make you more frustrated like the women who can't have an orgasm. And if science did prove there was a God, you would be concvinced that He is a jerk because of all the suffering in the world. So your scientific evidence would do you no good. In fact, it might make things even worse in your mind. A creator who cannot control His creation! What a loser He must be.
@DenCol,
So even if I could prove the existance of God scientifically, what difference would that make if you never got to know or experience Him for yourself?What difference would it make? What a total failure of imagination! It would be the greatest discovery in the history of discoveries! Are you so self-obsessed that you only care about things which affect your immediate life?
And if science did prove there was a God, you would be concvinced that He is a jerk because of all the suffering in the world.I would have to take all observations into account, definitely. If God isn't able to do anything about suffering then he wouldn't be a jerk of course (but would he really be a god?)
All of which is tangential to the glaring deficiencies of personal testimonies in the first place.
Tyro,
Discovering there was a God would be like finding the parents that had abandoned you as an infant. Most atheists would have a very low opinion of God if they found out He truly does exist. The world is in a mess, and it is His fault. Sivckness, poverty, wars, famine, cancer, death etc. Who wants to serve a God who allows such atrocities? If the world was a better place, there would not be so many atheists.
Most atheists that I have talked to cannot resolve a loving God and the existance of evil and suffering. Many Christians struggle with this issue as well. I do not know why God allows what He does. The Bible does not try to hide the fact that evil exists.
People are atheists because God does not measure up to their standards of what a God should be. They have way too many unanswered questions. So to say there is no God, is much easier for them. I was an atheist for about 4 years. God made no sense to me whatsoever. Jesus died but then came back life - so then where is the great sacrifice?? He did not stay dead!
People are atheists because God does not measure up to their standards of what a God should be.That's not true. Atheists don't generally have preconceived notions about what a god should be. What we do find however, is that god (should such a being exist) doesn't have the properties that religions ascribe to it. If such a being does exist, it almost certainly bares little resemblance to any conception come up with by humans.
As an atheist, my contention is that in the unlikely event that there is a god, it has no relation to any religion ever conceived of by us, and as such all religions are necessarily false, or at least based on false assumptions.
Hi Steven,
You said: "Atheists don't generally have preconceived notions about what a god should be."
So then what exactly is it that you do not believe in?
goprarie,
I think there's a big difference between empiricism and personal intuition. Genetic experiments produce results which can be tested, peer reviewed, and reproduced. This results in independently gained empirical knowledge.
If I catch a glimpse of a car in the mirror right before I back into it, is some divine force responsible for avoiding the collision? Or was the collision avoided because I looked in the mirror before entering a right-of-way? Some may say that divine intervention helped me avoid a collision. I assert that following the rules prevented the collision, and the results are reproducible. We know that if one looks before maneuvering a vehicle, collisions will be avoided. If you don't follow the rules and look before moving, no amount of divine intervention will stop the car from hitting something, eventually.
Dencol,
Nice to see you back as a commenter, good on you.
Thank you ccubeman.
DenCol,
The more specific your claim regarding God's nature, the more likely your claim is incorrect. However, if God's existence is going to provide meaning to or explain your experiences, then you must define God's nature in the specific context of your situation. Otherwise, God's existence seems irrelevant.
This is the dilemma.
Should God exist, I don't think we have sufficient reason to say we can define God's nature in such specificity that he can explain OUR experiences or OUR situations.
When same sex couples demand the right to marry, God doesn't approve. When someone close to us dies, it's part of God's mysterious plan. When presented with the question of first trimester abortions, God doesn't approve. When you find your car keys, it's because God wanted you to find them. Etc.
Are we really justified in reaching these specific conclusions? Why should we think they are anything more than wishful thinking?
There are certain things that God has revealed about His nature and character in the universe, the Bible, and in personal revelation. I know my wife in ways that no one else ever will. And she knows me in ways that no one else ever will. Deep intimacy reveals deep truths. The same is true with our relationship with God. This is not just some pie in the sky wishful thinking or religious mythology.
DenCol,
Your (or more generally theist) conceptions of god are what I don't believe in, as they fail to make a valid, reliable case for the existence of such a being, and in fact, there is evidence to suggest that if there is a god, you are highly likely to be wrong about it. As such, I make no claims about what such a being might be like, should it turn out to exist.
In other words, this is more or less what agnostic atheism is all about. I think your conceptions are wrong. I honestly have no such conceptions myself, as I don't claim to know where to even begin construct such a thing. But I do know that abandoning reason and rationality is not the path to discovering the nature of anything, much less something so grandiose as a deity.
DenCol,
I don't question your relationship with your wife, I'm sure you do know things about her that no one else does. But, you know, she's someone that I could meet personally, shake her hand and say hello, by that alone, I wouldn't question your assertion.
However, you can no more shake god's hand than I can. How do you know you're not engaged in some pie in the sky wishful thinking? And how do you prove that to someone like me, who knows all too well that each and every one of has has fallen prey to pie in the sky wishful thinking at one time or another, and that such thinking is completely indistinguishable from your claimed deep relationship with god?
DenCol, the analogy of a relationship with your wife to a relationship with God is very poor. A relationship with God is more like a relationship with a person whom you never meet, and only write letters to, and he never writes letters back directly but instead has another person write stuff down based on what they think he said, and then you also get a sense in your head of what you think he might say if he actually ever talked to you. Then, of course, the person writing his letters says that he needs money, so you send him a sum of money from every paycheck.
The idea that you can really get to know such a person is illusory. If everyone could know God like you know your wife, I don't think we'd have thousands of different religions and millions of different sects within those religions. The problem with asserting that your religion is the right one is that either you must choose between saying that a) everyone in other religions is intentionally denying the truth, or b) the evidence for your God is not as clear as you believe it to be. This choice is there whether you accept or reject the testimony or miracles, holy books, religious leaders, or anything else.
DenCol,
I don't know why you think that the negative comments atheists have made towards the biblical God should mean that we wouldn't leap for joy if we discovered a God existed. From a purely scientific achievement, I can't think of anything more mind-blowing.
Of course, once I recovered there is the question of what God's character might be. You say that you know your wife well and I'm sure you do. Yet our society deal with issues of spousal abuse and neglect all the time. When we look at the actions or inactions of a person, shouldn't we weigh those as highly as the kind words offered by their loved ones? How should we react to a case where a mother doesn't stand to offer her baby any food and watches as it starves to death? The husband comes to her defence and offers impassioned pleas but she stays silent. We forgive and she stands by and does nothing while another child drinks anti-freeze and slowly chokes and dies.
God does this every day. Stands by while people suffer and die in any number of ways. Stands by while disease ravages populations. I hear you saying that you have a deep and loving relationship but we can't ignore the (in)actions like you apparently can. And just like with bad marriages, the abused spouse is often first to leap to defend their abuser.
Actions speak louder than words. I hear a lot of excuses and assurances that, deep down, the Christian knows God exists and is loving but are these the words of a battered spouse?
We are battered by sin and Satan, not by God. The results of sin are all around us. War, terrorism, murder, rape, incest, child molestation, spouse abuse, etc etc.
We want God to do something about the sin of others while we want Him to indulge us in our sin. Of course, our sin is never as bad as the other guy's sin. But then when God's floods the earth, that is not forgiving and merciful! So God is damned if He does and damned if He doesn't. We want justice for the other guy and mercy and forgiveness for ourselves.
People today laugh at the 10 commandments, but the world would be a much better place if they were obeyed, don't you think? How about turning the other cheek, not returning evil for evil, and being quick to forgive and slow to anger? Or do you prefer divorce, wars, terrorism?
Yes, DenCol was unbanned. No one is banned forever if they show forth fruits of their repentence. ;-)
DenCol, did you say Ten Commandments?
Deep intimacy reveals deep truths.But is this intimacy real or an illusion?
We know this kind of false intimacy exists as there have been a number of obsessive fans who think they have a personal, intimate relationship with a celebrity. They do so despite the fact that we know this person exists and they obviously have little to no direct contact with the object of their obsession.
But God is supposedly everywhere, all powerful and immaterial. His ways are mysterous. Creating a false sense of intimacy with such a "being" would be easy as absolutely any event could be (and often is) interpreted as some kind of positive response.
Since we don't even know if God exists, how do you know you simply haven't imagined your relationship with him? What events, or lack there of, would you consider an indication that you did not have a relationship with God?
How about turning the other cheek, not returning evil for evil, and being quick to forgive and slow to anger? Or do you prefer divorce, wars, terrorism?First, this is a false dilemma. We do not need to believe in a non-material, all powerful being to ascribe to creating a more peaceful world.
Second, what kind of role model is God? He is depicted as demanding the wholesale slaughter of entire cultures. If we do not meet his demands (believe he exists, etc.), he will punish us eternally without any chance to learn from our punishment. Do you really think "the carrot and the stick" would be the "best" solution an all knowing, perfect being could come up with?
We need some cognitive and maybe a neuroscientist here. The parties present don't have authority to speaks of matters of mind. Personal testimonies can hardly be accepted as fact. Fantasy more likely. As for the woman who can't have an orgasm. Just like personal testimonies, it's all in their heads.
Hi Jason,
You said: As for the woman who can't have an orgasm. Just like personal testimonies, it's all in their heads.
The point is that the woman does not INTIMATELY know what an orgasm is. She has never had the experience or enjoyment of an orgasm. She knows it on paper, but not by experience! So also you only know about the concept of God. You only understand(or think you understand)about God, what you have read or heard about God.
As you know perception of reality does not necessarily mean it is real. Those spiritual experiences can be tracked and even be seen in the brain. The right chemicals can even induce them. For someone wanting wishing to have these experiences, i'm sure they have no problem saying it was god. Are you comparing a god with an orgasm? I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure somewhere that is a faulty comparison
DenCol,
Are you trying to argue that God is only a physiological effect, much like an orgasm?
So all of that stuff about Jesus, creating the world, miracles, heaven, hell - all of that is nonsense?
Uh oh, that's going to open up the floodgates
I am making the comparision with knowing something on paper and knowing something by actual experience. Knowing about orgasm on paper and knowing orgasm from experience are quite different. Atheists only know God on paper. Once you know God in experience, you will never be able to deny Him, anymore than you can deny an orgasm after you have one.
Is an orgasm all in their head? If not having one is in their head, then maybe having one is in their head also. Is that your argument?
Hi Tyro,
Hell is nonsense - the rest is true.
If the rest is true then drop this BS about orgasms. I don't give two mouldy monkey plops about the personal experience until there's some reason to think God really exists as something more than a nebulous idea or set of euphoric bodily reactions. If anything, the personal experience could be one of the worst arguments because it can be induced artificially and is likely caused by any number of other factors.
So keep up with the orgasm comparison by all means, provided you intend to argue that God is purely in your head. If not then smarten up.
Yes, it is all in their heads. Orgasms or lack of. Experiences of the supernatural like god or the lack there of. All in the head. Eventually we will be able to prove it and probably demonstrate it.
DenCol, I consider the following types of questions to devastate your claim to have had an experience with God. If you did then what is the cognitive content you learned about this God? That is, tell us the lessons your learned from this experience that lead you to think that your conception of God is the correct one? What is there about your experience that leads you to specifically think the experience came from a Trinitarian God, for instance? And surely you know the debates that Christians have about hell, the incarnation, the atonement, sanctification and the Bible itself. If your experiences are veridical then you're claiming that your conceptions are correct ones. But that by itself does not and cannot lead you to be sure your liberal Universalist Christianity is better than more conservative views unless you claim they did not experience the same God. What do these experiences lead you to believe about God that you think are true such that every Christian who has them should come away with the same cognitive content if they had the same experiences?
Is the sense of humor in your head? Why do you think things are funny when others do not? Do some people laugh harder and longer than others at the same joke? Of course! Why is that? Is there something wrong with sense of humor? Is it over the top? Or are the people that are not laughing as hard, low in their sense of humor?
Hope come dogs and cats do not laugh? How come they do not have a sense of humor? Where did the sense of humor come from?
The point is, where is your sense of God? Is it only on paper? Is it merely intellectual? How about romantic love? Where did romantic love come from? Have tyou experienced romantic love, or do you just know about it from reading about it?
Hi John,
Science and electronics are making new discoveries every day. I learn new things about God on a continual basis that are not found in the Bible.
Experiences do not necessarily help you to have better hermeneutics or exegesis. Really good Bible scholars are extremely rare. Most pastors are biblically inept and the congregation is even worse. It is embarrasing. Christians do not know their Bible, as you know very well.
More later.
Dencol, sense of humor is in the head and it varies from person to person. Just as love, hate, inspiration, spiritual experiences and beauty. If there was a God wouldn't the standard of beauty be constant for the whole human race? It obviously isn't.
Hi Jason,
You asked, "If there was a God wouldn't the standard of beauty be constant for the whole human race?"
Of course not! God made us as individuals with unique tastes, desires, impulses, personalities, faces, etc etc etc! How boring it would be if we all looked alike and had the same personalities and desires!
What's the use of any of these things if all ideas come from him like you say. That would make us all puppets.
How does divine inspiration make us puppets??? When you teach your children things, or give them new ideas, are they now your pupppets??? What kind of logic is that?
Do you mind telling me your age? Are you a young man? I am just curious. I am 55 years old.
Apparently not because all good ideas come from god. Not the parents.
As you stated earlier. All good ideas com from god
Yes, God gives you good ideas and you share those ideas with your children and with others! God gave us the ability to communicate and to learn from one another. We learn much from books written by the ideas of others!
DenCol, I find you dense, extremely so. How can you tell when the ideas are good ones from the ones that are bad?
Good ideas work! Good ideas benefit people and make their lives more pleasant and more enjoyable.
Duh!! that's why their called good ideas. And good ideas don't always work. Judgment on whether or not an idea is good is in eyes of the beholder. So which ones come from god and which ones come from humans.
DenCol you are anti-intellectual. You need to read this book.
I regret allowing your stupidity back here at DC.
Are lawn mowers a good idea? Airplanes, radio, TV, microwaves, telephones, cars, air conditioning, computers, etc etc?
What did I say that was stupid? Can you please be more specific and tell me exactly why it is stupid?
I have not been disrespectful to you since I have been back, so why are you breaking your own comment policy and being disrespectful to me?
Lawnmowers but grass but they also spew noxious gases into the environment. That's not too good. Same with airplanes and cars. Air conditioning used to punch holes into the ozone layer with their refrigerant. TV allows for the broadcasting of stuff you would call profane and vulgar. Computers create hazardous waste that harms the environment. But they all have their uses. Couldn't god come up with an idea that didn't harm the environment.
The book you recommended got 11 one star ratings, 14 two star ratings, and 19 three star ratings. So there are many that disgree with your recommendation.
Jason,
If you do not like those inventions, then you are free not to use them. If the environment is getting worse, then why are people living longer on average?
Listen up DenCol once again, since you missed it the first time around. This is a place to reason with one another. For you to continue your one note song that reasoning isn't why you believe and that experience does, then you and I do not share any ground to talk reasonably about these issues, which, whether you admit it or not, is what you're attempting to do. If you believe because of experience then give us an argument that shows us religious experience is veridical. Do the hard work here. Otherwise you have no business being here, since you would be just as frustrated with someone who repeatedly claimed to personally know Allah or Zeus because of an experience. That's the same impact your claims make on us. It's like you're in la la land to us. If you want to communicate then you have to meet us on common ground. Otherwise you're simply ejaculating on us. Masturbate somewhere else.
And don't tell me when I am not abiding by the comment policy. I am. Read it again. Don't waste my time showing you where.
Medical Science is why. You are really making this stuff up as you go along aren't you. Why don't you move on. I vote to have you banned and neutered so you can't reproduce. I think that would be a fantastic idea. It must have come from god
Why are we talking about good ideas anyway? DenCol may believe that all good ideas come from God and bad ones come from Satan but I don't see any sign that he's offering this as evidence for God. In this sense, he's no different than any other mushy apologist who says that any good fortune is a miracle from God.
The whole thing from the first post seems like a string of non-sequiturs and red herring and following him is taking away from the good points in TFA which I thought was the purpose of this discussion.
I'd try to get us back on track, but I'm siding with John - talking with DenCol is feeling like talking to a seven year old, a random collection of observations without any coherent argument. And because of these ridiculous side-tracks, any chance for a reasoned discussion seems to get quashed. Ooooh, shiny!
Has anyone read "The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues" by John Kildahl. It performed a great study on might be the psychological reason why people may be subject to speaking in tongues
John,
You asked me to quit sharing my personal testimonies, and I did. Right now I am using reason, logic, intellect, wisdom, discernemnt, and discrection. If you have something specific that you want to confront me about, then please do so. Tell me exactly what I said that was stupid and why it is stupid. I have not regressed and your accusations are baseless. Please prove me wrong with some specific examples.
John,
Are you saying that calling me "extremely dense" is not disrespectful?
I would say it was a good observation
DenCol,
Why don't you summarize your argument for those of us who can't see the reason and logic that you say you're using.
If you thought President Obama was extremely dense, would it be respectful to tell him so?
Yawn
Hi Tyro,
Lets use some reason and logic. Where did matter come from? Where did all of the necessary components come from to allow the big bang. Where did time and space come from? Where is the beginning and end of space? Where did gravity come from? Rotation and revolution of the planets? Where did the brain come from with it's immense capacities for memory, reason, and logic? Where do dreams come from? How did life start? Where did the materials come from to create life? How come we haven't yet found life on any other planets?
I don't know where to start, DenCol. Perhaps you should start by making an argument that leads you and all others who have had the same religious experience to the same conclusions about God. Tell us also how we can know that everyone who comes to the same conclusions actually had the same experience. Describe the God you claim to experience and how you came to this cognitive content from that experience itself. Provide for us a moral principle whereby we can determine which ideas are good ones from those that are bad as a result of this religious experience since some people claim God told them to kill others as a result of such an experience. Explain why your experience is veridical and theirs is not by providing a principle that can distinguish between true ones from false ones. Tell us why others like me do not have this experience, too. And then before you post such a comment run it past someone who believes in Zeus to see what he says about your explanations. First try to envision what he would say in response and respond to him if you can. If you can’t then don’t post it.
What logic is that Dencol? That is nothing more than a large list of questions. Are you prepared to answer each of those one by one? Let me do it for you. God did it all. Wow that was easy. No thinking needed hence we get you.
DenCol, from the comment policy:
"We will do our best to treat our opponents with some dignity and respect, even if we do not believe what they are claiming. We choose to follow the Golden Rule, for the most part, even though it isn't to be followed unthinkingly."
I think for the most part I'm doing my best with you. ;-) Sometimes it's hard you see, with people like you.
DenCol,
You haven't mentioned any of those things before, and none of them have anything to do with the first article. I'm trying to give you a chance to show that your posts up until now have been an attempt to present a reasoned, logical argument. Starting an entirely new side-track is just confirming my earlier fears, that you are only here to spread red herrings and wild goose chases.
So again, can you summarize your arguments that you've presented so far and explain how they relate to John's post?
Hi John,
I can take what the Bible says, and test it by my life to see whether or not it is true. Does Zeus claim to heal people? Does Zeus claim that I will be able to pray in tongues? Does Zeus claim to be able to take way sin?
My relationship with God is not based on just some religious blind faith. I have tested God and His word, just as a scientist has to test his theories. My experiences are real, testable, repeatable, observable, and predictable. It is based on wisdom, intellect, reason, logic, experience, and knowledge. I do not believe in God, I KNOW God for an absolute and proven FACT!
So you would say that that evidential value of personal testimony is rather high. Is that what you are getting at.
DenCol, what is the best way to test whether or not the sun stopped in the sky during Joshua's day, or whether a star shone over a house in Bethlehem? Personal experiencing these things is not what does it. There are more objective ways to test such things. Have you read my book? Are you opposed to it for any good reason?
I am saying that I have tested God and found Him to be 100% true.
Well, with such clear and unambiguous criteria for distinguishing between wishful thinking and divinity, I can't imagine why anyone should have a problem accepting your word on this or any other subject!
So you do put a high value on Personal Testimony. What did you test and how did you test it? Data?
DenCol said: I do not believe in God, I KNOW God for an absolute and proven FACT!
Okay folks, what we have here is a very deluded man. This is not an argument. Make an argument or no more comments (unless you're responding as I write). You see there is no way we can test such a claim and we have not had that experience. Masturbate somewhere else. Final warning. You want to be banned, don't you? It's the persecution complex that confirms that if you're persecuted then God thinks you're a blessed person.
I'll bless you then, if you want. No more second chances.
Hi John,
As you already know, I do not agree with everything in our present day Bible. There is much in the Bible that is highly questionable. My belief in God does not rely or depend upon inerrancy.
And no, I am not opposed to reading your book whatsoever. I love listening to Bart Ehman and I love honest textual criticism. I have listened to many of his debates on Youtube and I listened to your radio interview from last Novemeber.
Can you mail me a copy of your book (for free maybe?), or do I need to go to Amazon?
John,
Can you please tell me exactly what types of arguments I am allowed to make? Do you want Scriptures, fulfilled propecies, verified and documeted healings and miracles? Documented spontaneous remission of cancer? The blind seeing again with no medical treatment? What exactly are you wanting from me?
DenCol, I see you're persistent. I have copies of my book to sell, but they would be cheaper on Amazon. No, I don't hand them out for free.
The kinds of things you mentioned in your last comment are appropriate arguments, but you are once again moving the goals posts. You said it's personal experience that confirms what you believe, not these other things.
John,
I have much more than just personal experiences. I have tested God's word and found it to be true. I have seen God at work all around me and in the lives of others. I have seen miracles and answered prayers. They have done scientific research on the effcts of prayer you know.
Even in your interview and Bart Ehrman's testimony, your coming to the atheist position was based alot on your personal experiences and personal evaluations.
DenCol,
This isn't a free-for-all, it's a blog. That means we're here to discuss the specific issues in the articles posted which, in this case, is the evidential values of personal testimonies.
If this doesn't interest you then wait for a subject which does. If you can't stick to these simple conventions, you shouldn't be surprised if you get booted.
Start your own blog, find a chat room or join a web forum. They may be more your style.
Okay DenCol, then respond to what I originally wrote here. Read it again. How do you respond?
Also get my book and let me know what you think of it.
"Eighty-two-year-old Don Karkos, who lost sight in his right eye when he was hit by a shrapnel in combat during World War II, miraculously regained his eye sight after being head butted by a race horse.
For 64 years, Karkos said he tried treatment from various doctors to regain sight on his right eye but all in vain until pedigree racehorse "My Buddy Chimo" hit him in he head.
He told the New York Daily News that hours after the racehorse hit him in exactly the same spot as the shrapnel gashed his forehead in 1942, he started regaining his vision."....
"Dr. Douglas Lozzaro, head of ophthalmology at Long Island College Hospital, said the blow could have knocked a dislocated lens back into place."
http://www.wayodd.com/partially-blind-man-regained-eye-sight-after-head-butt-from-horse/v/6010/
"A woman who was blind for a quarter of a century has baffled doctors by regaining her sight after suffering a heart attack.
Great-grandmother Joyce Urch, 74, awoke from a coma to find her vision restored.
Doctors are describing it as a 'miracle' because they can find no medical explanation for the phenomenon.
Mrs Urch, from Coventry, lost her sight in 1979, apparently because of glaucoma. After more than 25 years, she was admitted to the city's Walsgrave Hospital with chest pains.
A few days later, she suffered a cardiac arrest and was not expected to live. But she recovered - and left doctors and her 77-year-old husband Eric astounded when she shouted: "I can see, I can see, I can see."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-374607/Blind-woman-regains-sight-heart-attack.html
DenCol:
"Dr. Douglas Lozzaro, head of ophthalmology at Long Island College Hospital, said the blow could have knocked a dislocated lens back into place."
That's not a miracle. I find you disengenuous.
I'm going to finally bless you. you don't seem to be sincere if you post this kind of stuff.
What???? What????? The Drs had already tried may times during the 64 years he was blind! And then a knock from a horse fixes it!!! The article even called it a miracle!
See this.
You're spamming up my Blog.
I'm trying to be fair, but it's difficult, very difficult.
Watch this. This is a very good video.
Post a Comment