My Stance on the Supernatural

[Old Things]

There are various views on metaphysics. Some people are pure naturalists. These people believe everything in the universe is made of space, matter, and energy and there is nothing else.

Then, there is a kind of agnosticism or views that agree with some kind of non-physical reality but don't make the step far enough to say there are things that "break the laws of physics" or otherwise, even though we can't "see" everything with our senses, in the end, everything will be able to be reduced to the universe. In other words, there may or may not be any God or gods, and certainly, there would be a reluctance to believe in something like angels. I would put someone like Joe Schmid or Jordan Peterson in this category.

Then, most of the world believes in the supernatural because they clearly see it with their eyes and pick it up with their senses.

In my view, I am cautiously optimistic when it comes to the supernatural. I would say even if I lost faith in Christianity, I would still believe in the supernatural. Why? My experience. I've experienced far too many supernatural things in my own experience to write it off as explained by natural means. When you see a guy who says himself that your prayer for him did something to him and at the least put his shoulder back in joint, it's too much to deny. That being said, I do not believe every miracle story I hear because I know there are far too many people who want money or power for such experiences. I am also open to people having supernatural dreams, visions, gut feelings, and other senses that are very hard to quantify through naturalistic means. I've had dreams and visions myself. I also believe in angels and believe I have seen them. I've seen beams of light when it was completely dark out, and the light came from out of nowhere. I have also heard an audible voice that spoke to me, saying, "The Lord is here."

Here is a survey that Pew Research conducted on believing in the supernatural in the US.

Spirituality Among Americans

Overall, 70% of U.S. adults describe themselves as spiritual in some way, including 22% who are spiritual but not religious. An overwhelming majority of U.S. adults (83%) say they believe that people have a soul or spirit in addition to their physical body. And 81% say there is something...

www.pewresearch.org

Here is an article I wrote about some of the supernatural things I have experienced.

The Supernatural in my Life

I'm just writing this to collect some of the supernatural occurrences that have happened to me over the span of my life. Some may appear to be natural, but I honestly believe God was at work in them.The first is when I was high on marijuana and I had pulled a cobweb from someplace and I was...

www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net

 

[EndogenousRebel]

"What do I know?" has always been my official stance.

There are certain things that you would say are spiritual that I'm sure I would take issue with.

To me for example, some sort of spiritual phenomena that we can see, in human dreams for example; seeing yourself inside a house (at least in the west to my knowledge) is usually a given to represent your own mind- the house I mean.

It's an interesting idea, that so many people would catch on to this notion. Is it a spell that we have put ourselves under thanks to language? Or is there some inherent truth to this plurality of held tendencies?

Yes, sometimes things from the outside world may come into our home, our mind. Spirituality in essence is a recognition of that.

Supernatural is like, as you describe materialists as naturalist (fair I guess), a sticky situation for materialist.

The thing about remarkable discoveries and advancing technology; is that things that once seemed like magic, become mundane. There are a lot of things that we will (hopefully) do in the future that to us now look like we do at marvel movies.

But it's like, once we attain knowledge, of course that's what was going to happen. We got that warning from somewhere... I don't know maybe I'll link it if remember later.

 

[Hadoblado]

I am not married to the notion that everything that exists is matter, space, or energy. There could very well be other things that we're yet to systematically observe. But if we found another component of reality, I fail to see how it would be above nature. Systems have clear scope for ease of conceptualisation, not because they necessarily begin and end in some objective way.

The main difference between the natural and the supernatural seems to be the ease of which we observe them. This doesn't feel like a meaningful distinction to me. If we find conclusive proof of bigfoot, that doesn't make them supernatural, it just means nature isn't what we thought it was.

As for the experience of the supernatural, my family is full of people who believe in wild shit. Most of the time it's hard to verify, but sometimes it's clear cut that they've misperceived or their memories have warped far beyond the reality of events. The insistence on the infallibility of their perception is always the same.

Studying psychology, you begin to understand just how many blanks your brain fills. You have a permanent hallucination in each eye covering the blindspot where the optic nerve connects. Your perception of events is heavily influenced by suggestive context. Auditory hallucinations are surprisingly common in otherwise healthy individuals. Memory itself is malleable. The brain is not designed for truth-seeking, it's designed for navigating the natural and social world.

 

[Old Things]

I am not married to the notion that everything that exists is matter, space, or energy. There could very well be other things that we're yet to systematically observe. But if we found another component of reality, I fail to see how it would be above nature. Systems have clear scope for ease of conceptualisation, not because they necessarily begin and end in some objective way.

The main difference between the natural and the supernatural seems to be the ease of which we observe them. This doesn't feel like a meaningful distinction to me. If we find conclusive proof of bigfoot, that doesn't make them supernatural, it just means nature isn't what we thought it was.

As for the experience of the supernatural, my family is full of people who believe in wild shit. Most of the time it's hard to verify, but sometimes it's clear cut that they've misperceived or their memories have warped far beyond the reality of events. The insistence on the infallibility of their perception is always the same.

Studying psychology, you begin to understand just how many blanks your brain fills. You have a permanent hallucination in each eye covering the blindspot where the optic nerve connects. Your perception of events is heavily influenced by suggestive context. Auditory hallucinations are surprisingly common in otherwise healthy individuals. Memory itself is malleable. The brain is not designed for truth-seeking, it's designed for navigating the natural and social world.

What is your view on something like cancer disappearing after someone prayed for the person?

 

[Hadoblado]

That this is a non-systematic observation, a cherrypicked sample, and if it were representative we wouldn't need doctors.

If something works it can be observed and implemented systematically.

The threshold for a treatment working is when it predictably outcompetes placebo.

 

[BurnedOut]

I just have one question for proponents of the supernatural. Why is it that all these incidences happen in complete isolation? They cannot be captured via cameras and nobody even tries to capture them? Why do they bend the laws of physics only in the absence of an audience and why does it occur in a way that does not punch a hole in the fabric of reality? If cameras and eyes are almost the same, why cannot cameras witness the same phenomenon?

If cancers can indeed be cured by prayers then it throws the entirety of biology into question. But prayers cannot heal a cold, flu or a compound fracture, neither burn wounds, etc.

Nobody in the current era has tried to jump off buildings and flap their arms in the name of the lord or try doing tightrope on a thread. Why do believers shy away from testing miracles in front of everybody where there is little room for bias?

 

[Old Things]

That this is a non-systematic observation, a cherrypicked sample, and if it were representative we wouldn't need doctors.

Whether or not we would "need doctors" is beside the point. What the facts are is that some people go to the doctor, and the doctors take X-rays of their cancer, then they are prayed for, and they go back to the doctor, and no concern is there.

The Hume argument against miracles is lazy at best and does not wrestle with all the evidence pointing to miracles. Why God would heal some people and not others is not for us to know and it's not like we could understand it even if He told us.

Surrendering to God: How My Faith Led to Healing From Cancer

Through colon cancer and liver cancer, faith is what brought me to peace and clarity during treatment and now survivorship.

www.curetoday.com

For a personal anecdote from me, I used to struggle with paranoia at night almost every night. The only things that have changed for me are that I am a little more regular with my anti-psychotic shot, and my faith is what it is today.

 

[Old Things]

I just have one question for proponents of the supernatural. Why is it that all these incidences happen in complete isolation? They cannot be captured via cameras and nobody even tries to capture them? Why do they bend the laws of physics only in the absence of an audience and why does it occur in a way that does not punch a hole in the fabric of reality? If cameras and eyes are almost the same, why cannot cameras witness the same phenomenon?

If cancers can indeed be cured by prayers then it throws the entirety of biology into question. But prayers cannot heal a cold, flu or a compound fracture, neither burn wounds, etc.

Nobody in the current era has tried to jump off buildings and flap their arms in the name of the lord or try doing tightrope on a thread. Why do believers shy away from testing miracles in front of everybody where there is little room for bias?

 

[dr froyd]

what is space, matter, energy ultimately? It's not just stuff you can see and touch - after all we have some wacky theories about what matter actually is. The only thing that distinguishes that type of study of reality from ostensible perceptions of the supernatural is just epistemic humility and the admission of human fallibility. It is arrogant to claim that we know - or even can know - everything about the universe via materialist science, but it is orders of magnitude more arrogant to claim that we can know it by not conforming to any standards of inquiry whatsoever and simply assume we have a direct line to the creator of reality using our senses and sensations

 

[Hadoblado]

That this is a non-systematic observation, a cherrypicked sample, and if it were representative we wouldn't need doctors.

Whether or not we would "need doctors" is beside the point. What the facts are is that some people go to the doctor, and the doctors take X-rays of their cancer, then they are prayed for, and they go back to the doctor, and no concern is there.

The Hume argument against miracles is lazy at best and does not wrestle with all the evidence pointing to miracles. Why God would heal some people and not others is not for us to know and it's not like we could understand it even if He told us.

Surrendering to God: How My Faith Led to Healing From Cancer

Through colon cancer and liver cancer, faith is what brought me to peace and clarity during treatment and now survivorship.

www.curetoday.com

For a personal anecdote from me, I used to struggle with paranoia at night almost every night. The only things that have changed for me are that I am a little more regular with my anti-psychotic shot, and my faith is what it is today.

I haven't read Hume and wasn't citing him. I don't really feel as if you addressed what I said. I didn't say anything about God healing some people and not others. I said if supernatural acts of healing occur they should be measurable and repeatedly observable. They should be distinguishable from chance.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

(my intro post is under mod review, onesteptwostep here)

In terms of prayers, I think prayer just optimizes your brain into psychologically priming yourself to see things which you need.

Additionally, this of course is totally out of scientific reasoning, but I think prayer is like an extreme form of bonding that allows you to will away certain things, like cancer. I think if you could some how gather the top 10 more fervent praying people in the world and conducted studies on them, you'd see that they control certain biological qualifiers as they prayed (or meditated).

But of course ethical considerations would completely disallow such an experiment, so 1 for the supernatural and 0 for the naturalists

Oh, and one link between thought and biological change is... stress. The more we think, or use our heads, we enact change onto our biology- i.e. our brain. So as to prayer being able to affect biology... I mean.. if too much thinking can induce stress, why wouldn't positive stress be able to do something good for the body? (In very, very limited quantities at least)

 

[Puffy]

Anything “supernatural” I believe in is because it works.

I’ve had an active kundalini syndrome for over 10 years after practicing Kriya yoga. What spiritualists refer to as energy in the body is a permanent physical sensation for me. It orbits at points in the body where Ayurveda says chakras are. Treatments that claim to work on energy in the body like acupuncture, energy healing, qi gong, tantra, Thai massage, etc have a tangible impact on the sensations I feel. I’ve had two girlfriends who both had the same thing and standing a few feet behind each other we could direct energy to points on the back of their body and we would accurately be able to guess where they were pointing each time. Because the sensation of where they were directing it to is as tangible as me touching you on the shoulder.

The above could ultimately be related to the nervous system and thus be natural as a result of it. I don’t personally care about hairsplitting definitions of supernatural/natural in that way. But questioning if it’s real for me would be like me questioning if what your eyes see is real. It’s an undeniable part of my world and so naturally I explore it in the same way you explore the world with your own senses.

 

[Old Things]

I said if supernatural acts of healing occur they should be measurable and repeatedly observable.

Then it would not be supernatural by definition.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Yes. We are spirits first, in temporary human form. Just talking about this sort of thing with people that also have these experiences feels confirming and healing somehow. But you can't just talk about it to anyone, as most people haven't widely accepted this and most are not six sensory types, they are five sensories. I've had many experiences with this, in many ways, angels, dreams, precognition, intuition, nature warnings, animals being sensitive, and people contacting me when thinking of them, and on and on. Also, I LOVE watching these metaphysical shows on Gaia TV to expand my mind, and ancient alien shows. Last night I was watching one on the stone structures that were built 17.000 years ago, with stone pillars that weigh 1,200 TONS each, that would be impossible to build even with modern technology, or thousands of people trying. They were not even local stones that they say were flown into place, (might be non linear fractal resonance) or antigravity type ancient knowledge). One of those is in Florida, its called Coral Castle. Others in Machu Pichu, Peru, the Andes, and even the Sphinx and Pyramids and Stonehenge were apparently built the same way, using resonance and sound waves. Also, the North and South poles are apparently huge gateways into the center of the inner earth. Inside there are civilizations that are guardians of our planet. I think they will keep us protected. And, when you hear "AS above, so below", that is what they are speaking of. That the real heaven is inside earth, and we are above, they are below. There are inner spaces inside earth, caves, crystals, and even an inner Sun, not as bright as the Sun we know. Anyway, we should stay open to and talk with people with similar experiences, its reaffirming.

And, indeed, its Supernatural x 1000 how these Megalithic stone structures were built. https://historytoknow.com/10-most-famous-megalithic-structures/

 

[Cognisant]

Imo anything that exists is a natural phenomena, it may not be understood, indeed it may not exist in a manner in which we are capable of understanding yet, but if it exists it is natural, because nature is simply that which exists.

If biologists discover a new species they don't declare it unnatural because it isn't part of their known world, rather the given assumption of science is that we don't know everything and we will discover things.

What baffles me is the idea that say angels exists, but they MUST be inexplicable, that for whatever reason we must be fundamentally incapable of studying and understanding them... because?

Because I think people who believe in angels want them to exist only in their minds, because as a figment of your imagination angels can be whatever you want them to be, you have the power to decide it and nobody can contradict you because nobody can prove you wrong.

I think this is how Christians relate to God, or more specifically Jesus, the original person wasn't white (as he is so commonly depicted) he was Arabic and even the name "Jee-sus" is a mispronunciation of the Arabic "Jey-seus". Really the modern day concept of Jesus is more of a fictional character than anything to do with the original person, and that suits Christians just fine. Because it means Jesus is whoever they want him to be and through him they get to presume the will of God, who has been largely supplanted by Jesus, because people don't want an all powerful and largely indifferent force of nature, they want a God who cares about them personally, who they can have a personal relationship with, even if it's entirely in their own heads.

Imo modern day Christianity is hopelessly enamored with idols of their own making.

 

[fluffy]

To study the super-natural is like studying super-man. He is not what is depicted in comics but more so like a super soldier. So the reality is in what is the mechanism at play. What is the cause of for instance miracles because it is not random but it should not be unexplained. As an instance we could say miracles are descending from a higher reality we don't know of and this is the original understanding of "energy".

 

[fluffy]

En - urge - ee

Given the urge is for a causation.

But then en is for a decent like in enlightenment because it comes from the higher realms.

Then Perhaps it is a greater dimension.

But in material terms it is like this:

Star Trek: energize

 

[Old Things]

I think this is how Christians relate to God, or more specifically Jesus, the original person wasn't white (as he is so commonly depicted) he was Arabic and even the name "Jee-sus" is a mispronunciation of the Arabic "Jey-seus". Really the modern day concept of Jesus is more of a fictional character than anything to do with the original person, and that suits Christians just fine. Because it means Jesus is whoever they want him to be and through him they get to presume the will of God, who has been largely supplanted by Jesus, because people don't want an all powerful and largely indifferent force of nature, they want a God who cares about them personally, who they can have a personal relationship with, even if it's entirely in their own heads.

I'd guess about 99% of Christians know Jesus wasn't white. Jesus is just the English form for the Greek word Ιησοῦς, which is the Greek form of the Hebrew word יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ , which just means Salvation.

Jesus (name) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[fluffy]

Joshua who came after Moses was where Jesus name is derived. I believe.

It is common to name kids after hero figures.

So many kids were named Joshua in this period.

 

[Hadoblado]

I said if supernatural acts of healing occur they should be measurable and repeatedly observable.

Then it would not be supernatural by definition.

most of the world believes in the supernatural because they clearly see it with their eyes and pick it up with their senses.

So the supernatural is real because it's clearly observable, but by definition the supernatural is what cannot be reliably observed?

 

[Old Things]

So the supernatural is real because it's clearly observable, but by definition the supernatural is what cannot be reliably observed?

It's not repeatable. It is not predictable.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

It's a paradox . . !

I think definitively, it's difficult to express beyond the contours of scientific frameworks. The more we try to get at the universality of an event throught specific language, the event deconstructs and somewhat ceases to exist on some level. It's not to say that deconstruction or focused inquiry is bad, but sometimes magic just exists in the world and there's simply not enough resources to get around to the science of it. I mean, think of all the Ph.D candidates trying to get funding for their research. Sure, we can get at a truth of something, but there are limitations on getting to that truth. Sometimes truth is.. political- or begot by a pracitical necessity, not necessarily on its essense of its objective truthfulness, (in the platonic ideal sense of the word).

Damn, I sound like a relativist right now. Either way, no scientific inquiry will sate the proposition of whether the supernatural exists. I think it's more a value statement rather than one of factuality.

 

[Hadoblado]

You talk about evidence and call opposing arguments lazy, then claim the evidence is unverifiable and I should just trust you bro.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

Honestly, there's a kernel of truth in what you're saying Hado, half of religion really is persuasion lol

 

[Old Things]

You talk about evidence and call opposing arguments lazy, then claim the evidence is unverifiable and I should just trust you bro.

The evidence is the effects of the supernatural. Humes's arguments are lazy, and there were people in his own day who criticized his work, and it wasn't until post-modern society that people decided to pick up Hume's work and run with it. I did not claim the evidence was unverifiable. I claimed the evidence is not repeatable or predictable.

Look, Hado, I know you like to think of yourself as a smart, unbiased guy, but the truth is, you are very biased against miracles, as evidenced by the first thread I started on this site, where I gave a scholarly case for the resurrection of Christ and you simply said, "They lyin'" without looking into it at all. You are not neutral in this because nobody is truly neutral about anything. That's not a knock on you. We are all biased and bring our presuppositions into pretty much every debatable thing there is. I'm just asking that you consider that you are biased.

 

[Hadoblado]

Studying psychology, you begin to understand just how many blanks your brain fills. You have a permanent hallucination in each eye covering the blindspot where the optic nerve connects. Your perception of events is heavily influenced by suggestive context. Auditory hallucinations are surprisingly common in otherwise healthy individuals. Memory itself is malleable. The brain is not designed for truth-seeking, it's designed for navigating the natural and social world.

When I said this, did you think I was claiming that only other people are biased? Why are you even talking about this?

They do be lyin' QED

 

[fluffy]

In the scientific method we are looking for something that is measurable.

Something that gives a result when we do actions we can put in quantitative/geometric terms.

These empirical tests will work on some aspects of reality but not others because of the limitations of statistics.

We cannot for example know what a person will do by a mathematical formula at a high resolution. We cannot enter data into a computer and get an answer because of what is in chaos theory called initial conditions.

If this is the case then much of science is off limits to human minds. How do you measure a realty above your own when the cost of computation is exceedingly high.

If a being above us is in control we would not know where to begin. We would not have the conceptualization to know what it is.

So magic would be the best way to look at it.
Because it is beyond the capacity to know.

A person could be healed in miraculous ways. Not with matter and energy but a new concept all together.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Here's an interesting perspective I read years ago but can't find the source of:

Prayer as we know it today is very different from what a being who grew up in the most decrepit conditions would consider a prayer.

Indeed, the question about an internal monologue is something that vexes science today, or at least it's something that is repeatedly in the news cycle, probably because it still gets people's attention.

And so, being that some sort of internal dialogue whether it be verbal or non-symbolic, it raises the question of it it's something unique to us, or a symptom of the world we happen to be struck by.

Like life is a big bang that that we are still recovering from, so to speak.

I digress, the theory about prayer, would be that we created prayer, that it is how we chose our higher instincts.

We today pray to on monotheistic all-powerful being. Our ancestors prayed to the jungle, dessert, blizzard spirits. And their ancestors invented (or were given) prayer, from something as common as protecting their child and finding their next meal, which when you add the brutality of the wild, surely must have been confusing. Yet, this emerging energy, to pray, which breathes into it meaning, is beautiful, and magical enough for me.

I read somewhere that Baal was a primordial god, a Titan of sorts for the Hebrew people who would later become Israelites.

He's very much like and has many stories taken from to serve Yahweh and his stories. But within this different context, Baal is a god of destruction in a sense.

Almost in a good way though. Following suit with other kings of godly pantheons.

Without the storms of life and the power of nature, there would be no growth. A storm of just the right proportion would bring with it plentiful yields of agriculture.

It's almost like there's a necessary destruction that comes with such good things. Like a big bang.

Literally if we look at the word supernatural, it's just a inflation of what is natural so that it is above natural. But there's no such thing as something that's not natural, so supernatural, unnatural, natural it's all the same.

The future is unwritten, but it is forecasted. Devine intervention is just the capacity of your sight showing

 

[Old Things]

Here's an interesting perspective I read years ago but can't find the source of:

Prayer as we know it today is very different from what a being who grew up in the most decrepit conditions would consider a prayer.

Indeed, the question about an internal monologue is something that vexes science today, or at least it's something that is repeatedly in the news cycle, probably because it still gets people's attention.

And so, being that some sort of internal dialogue whether it be verbal or non-symbolic, it raises the question of it it's something unique to us, or a symptom of the world we happen to be struck by.

Like life is a big bang that that we are still recovering from, so to speak.

I digress, the theory about prayer, would be that we created prayer, that it is how we chose our higher instincts.

We today pray to on monotheistic all-powerful being. Our ancestors prayed to the jungle, dessert, blizzard spirits. And their ancestors invented (or were given) prayer, from something as common as protecting their child and finding their next meal, which when you add the brutality of the wild, surely must have been confusing. Yet, this emerging energy, to pray, which breathes into it meaning, is beautiful, and magical enough for me.

I read somewhere that Baal was a primordial god, a Titan of sorts for the Hebrew people who would later become Israelites.

He's very much like and has many stories taken from to serve Yahweh and his stories. But within this different context, Baal is a god of destruction in a sense.

Almost in a good way though. Following suit with other kings of godly pantheons.

Without the storms of life and the power of nature, there would be no growth. A storm of just the right proportion would bring with it plentiful yields of agriculture.

It's almost like there's a necessary destruction that comes with such good things. Like a big bang.

Literally if we look at the word supernatural, it's just a inflation of what is natural so that it is above natural. But there's no such thing as something that's not natural, so supernatural, unnatural, natural it's all the same.

The future is unwritten, but it is forecasted. Devine intervention is just the capacity of your sight showing

I see a lot of assertions in this post and no evidence of any of it.

 

[Old Things]

They do be lyin'

That is your bias without even looking into it. It is willful ignorance. It is Hume's argument that, "Miracles don't happen because it goes against the natural order." How do we know that nothing goes against the natural order? "Because miracles don't happen."

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Here's an interesting perspective I read years ago but can't find the source of:

Prayer as we know it today is very different from what a being who grew up in the most decrepit conditions would consider a prayer.

Indeed, the question about an internal monologue is something that vexes science today, or at least it's something that is repeatedly in the news cycle, probably because it still gets people's attention.

And so, being that some sort of internal dialogue whether it be verbal or non-symbolic, it raises the question of it it's something unique to us, or a symptom of the world we happen to be struck by.

Like life is a big bang that that we are still recovering from, so to speak.

I digress, the theory about prayer, would be that we created prayer, that it is how we chose our higher instincts.

We today pray to on monotheistic all-powerful being. Our ancestors prayed to the jungle, dessert, blizzard spirits. And their ancestors invented (or were given) prayer, from something as common as protecting their child and finding their next meal, which when you add the brutality of the wild, surely must have been confusing. Yet, this emerging energy, to pray, which breathes into it meaning, is beautiful, and magical enough for me.

I read somewhere that Baal was a primordial god, a Titan of sorts for the Hebrew people who would later become Israelites.

He's very much like and has many stories taken from to serve Yahweh and his stories. But within this different context, Baal is a god of destruction in a sense.

Almost in a good way though. Following suit with other kings of godly pantheons.

Without the storms of life and the power of nature, there would be no growth. A storm of just the right proportion would bring with it plentiful yields of agriculture.

It's almost like there's a necessary destruction that comes with such good things. Like a big bang.

Literally if we look at the word supernatural, it's just a inflation of what is natural so that it is above natural. But there's no such thing as something that's not natural, so supernatural, unnatural, natural it's all the same.

The future is unwritten, but it is forecasted. Devine intervention is just the capacity of your sight showing

I see a lot of assertions in this post and no evidence of any of it.

Well, this East Asian New Year is the year of the blue snake, so you figure it out.

 

[Old Things]

Well, this East Asian New Year is the year of the blue snake, so you figure it out.

You made the claim. Making a claim without backing it up is poor form.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Well, this East Asian New Year is the year of the blue snake, so you figure it out.

You made the claim. Making a claim without backing it up is poor form.

Well, once I find that claim that you're talking about I'll lyk

 

[Hadoblado]

Old Things

I'm being flippant because I see myself as already having put in more effort than you. You aren't substantiating what you believe, just dismissing alternative perspectives as "bias", which is ad hominem. Hume is lazy and I'm biased therefore you don't have to contend with the position. Very not lazy and not biased of you.

When there is ambiguous evidence, you are the one that decided actually it overturns physics. My "bias" is thinking that there is more likely to be explanations that don't.

 

[Old Things]

Well, this East Asian New Year is the year of the blue snake, so you figure it out.

You made the claim. Making a claim without backing it up is poor form.

Well, once I find that claim that you're talking about I'll lyk

Not sure how that has anything to do with the supernatural.

 

[Old Things]

Old Things

I'm being flippant because I see myself as already having put in more effort than you. You aren't substantiating what you believe, just dismissing alternative perspectives as "bias", which is ad hominem. Hume is lazy and I'm biased therefore you don't have to contend with the position. Very not lazy and not biased of you.

When there is ambiguous evidence, you are the one that decided actually it overturns physics. My "bias" is thinking that there is more likely to be explanations that don't.

No, you are not going to turn this around on me and tell me I am being lazy and biased when your argument against real scholarship is, "They lyin'."

Read volumes 1 and 2 of "On the Resurrection" by Dr. Gary Habermas. The first volume is about the evidence for the Resurrection based on facts that virtually all scholars in a relevant field agree with. The second volume combats virtually every single refutation of Christ's rising from the dead. The third volume is pretty much just a survey of what scholars in a relevant field say about the topic. The third volume has not been released yet. That might be of interest to you since you are claiming that Dr. Habermas is lying. A fourth volume will also be released on the many implications of the resurrection of Christ in Christian life.

Spoiler: 12 Historical Facts by Dr. Gary Habermas

• Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion.
• Jesus was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
• Afterward, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having their previous hope challenged.
• The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty very soon after his interment.
• The disciples reported experiences that they thought were actually appearances of the risen Jesus.
• The proclamation of the resurrection and appearances took place very early, soon after the experiences.
• These experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of becoming willing to die for their belief.
• The disciples’ initial reports, preaching, and teaching of these resurrection experiences took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified and buried shortly before.
• As the number of new converts to the Christian community grew and began to gather regularly at approximately this same time, the gatherings frequently featured meetings on the first day of the week for group study, prayer, and worship, traditionally commemorating the same day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
• The gospel message centered on the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
• James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, was converted, most likely after he believed that he also saw the risen Jesus.
• Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance of the risen Jesus to him.
  
  Habermas, Gary R. . On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences (pp. 688-689). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Whether something is "ambiguous evidence" or not is also something you bring your bias to. Read the book, "Miracles Today" by Dr. Craig Keener. In that book, there are many documented before and after doctor visits that demonstrate someone was inexplicably healed. You don't get to just say, "I believe there is a naturalistic explanation," if you don't actually look into the highly evidenced cases of miracles, which is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Hadoblado]

Old Things

I'm being flippant because I see myself as already having put in more effort than you. You aren't substantiating what you believe, just dismissing alternative perspectives as "bias", which is ad hominem. Hume is lazy and I'm biased therefore you don't have to contend with the position. Very not lazy and not biased of you.

When there is ambiguous evidence, you are the one that decided actually it overturns physics. My "bias" is thinking that there is more likely to be explanations that don't.

No, you are not going to turn this around on me and tell me I am being lazy and biased when your argument against real scholarship is, "They lyin'."

Read volumes 1 and 2 of "On the Resurrection" by Dr. Gary Habermas. The first volume is about the evidence for the Resurrection based on facts that virtually all scholars in a relevant field agree with. The second volume combats virtually every single refutation of Christ's rising from the dead. The third volume is pretty much just a survey of what scholars in a relevant field say about the topic. The third volume has not been released yet. That might be of interest to you since you are claiming that Dr. Habermas is lying. A fourth volume will also be released on the many implications of the resurrection of Christ in Christian life.

Spoiler: 12 Historical Facts by Dr. Gary Habermas

• Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion.
• Jesus was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
• Afterward, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having their previous hope challenged.
• The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty very soon after his interment.
• The disciples reported experiences that they thought were actually appearances of the risen Jesus.
• The proclamation of the resurrection and appearances took place very early, soon after the experiences.
• These experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of becoming willing to die for their belief.
• The disciples’ initial reports, preaching, and teaching of these resurrection experiences took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified and buried shortly before.
• As the number of new converts to the Christian community grew and began to gather regularly at approximately this same time, the gatherings frequently featured meetings on the first day of the week for group study, prayer, and worship, traditionally commemorating the same day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
• The gospel message centered on the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
• James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, was converted, most likely after he believed that he also saw the risen Jesus.

Whether something is "ambiguous evidence" or not is also something you bring your bias to. Read the book, "Miracles Today" by Dr. Craig Keener. In that book, there are many documented before and after doctor visits that demonstrate someone was inexplicably healed. You don't get to just say, "I believe there is a naturalistic explanation," if you don't actually look into the highly evidenced cases of miracles, which is exactly what you are doing.

Thankyou for finally stating the evidence you are talking about for the first time in this thread. It's really, really easy to be dismissive of unstated evidence. It's a passive ability of mine.

I don't believe it. That's not a bias in favour of one conclusion over another, it's an epistemic outlook. The evidence as it stands allows you to draw conclusions stronger than your confidence in all contradictory evidence. That's fine, but it doesn't work for me because we have fundamentally different beliefs about how truth works.

There is no claim like this that I have confidence in, even when they support a conclusion I believe. I have a standard that your evidence doesn't meet. That's fine. We disagree.

Understand this: There is no single book I could read that would overturn my beliefs. Not because my beliefs are concrete, because the process of a claim appearing in a book is fundamentally less rigorous than the entirety of all evidence pointing towards naturalism. I try not to cite books at all even when they support me, because any midwit can write a book and make it seem authoritative.

So yes, they lyin'. Or they mistaken'. Or they mistranslaten'. Or maybe they are correct - but the evidence I need isn't there. You're making an absolutely incredible claim and that requires incredible evidence for me to take seriously.

We don't have to fight. We can just respect that we see things differently and move on. Alternative perspectives aren't necessarily "lazy" or "biased". They're just different.

 

[Old Things]

Not because my beliefs are concrete

They literally are since nothing would change your mind.



That is literally what the series is. In the first book alone, the author goes at length to describe historical methodology going through the history of historical scholarship. This is a scholarly book. It is not just some guy making a book. The guy has a PhD that could easily be classified as both in history and philosophy. He is basically a philosopher of history. It's really weird for you to think you can't trust a book. Have you never heard of a PhD thesis, where the climax of getting your PhD is literally writing a book about your specialty? To just dismiss all books is not fair. Not all books are equal. Some are academic books, some are fiction, some are childrens books. Not all books are the same.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It's not about believing it's about knowing.

I thought that was the impetus for your piety. You have faith.

We know our history.

We know of certain seemingly anomalous phenomena, but not the how of the machinations that make them emerge.

When it comes to the SUBJECTIVE nature of the supernatural, we have narrowed it down to specific parts if the brain that are apart of reward processing. The caudet nucleus IIRC is the main correlation there.

You want to have a actual discussion, that's what it would be.

Otherwise, we talk about why the world makes us feel this way, which is where I was going. You don't want to engage because... I need to clarify a claim?

I think you have too much faith in humans ability to fathom something they don't understand or have never seen before.

We have a list of coping mechanism as strong as human being are capable of bearing. Intellect is one of those.

We dont have intellect about the supernatural, and if we did, it would cease to be supernatural.

 

[Old Things]

It's not about believing it's about knowing.

I thought that was the impetus for your piety. You have faith.

We know our history.

We know of certain seemingly anomalous phenomena, but not the how of the machinations that make them emerge.

When it comes to the SUBJECTIVE nature of the supernatural, we have narrowed it down to specific parts if the brain that are apart of reward processing. The caudet nucleus IIRC is the main correlation there.

You want to have a actual discussion, that's what it would be.

Otherwise, we talk about why the world makes us feel this way, which is where I was going. You don't want to engage because... I need to clarify a claim?

I think you have too much faith in humans ability to fathom something they don't understand or have never seen before.

We have a list of coping mechanism as strong as human being are capable of bearing. Intellect is one of those.

We dont have intellect about the supernatural, and if we did, it would cease to be supernatural.

That is only one side of the story.

The other side of the story is that sometimes things happen objectively, for which we have no natural answer.

I've experienced things like this. Here are two examples of healings that defy naturalist explanations. I encourage you to come up with a naturalistic explanation. So far, I have not come up with a plausible naturalistic explanation, but I have tried to come up with one. In short, what do you do when there is no ethereal experience that goes along with the miracle? What if the emotion you experience when witnessing the miracle is surprise? What if you are not expecting it, and it happens anyway? That is not going to be something that correlates with the brain playing a trick on you.

The Spirit is Moving.

I don't know where my readers stand on Spiritual Gifts, but I do believe they are for today. And more, I believe God is awakening them in people for such a time as this.Riots, shootings, CRT being introduced in our Schools, woke culture, and a general bitterness toward God are things I see or...

www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net

A Toad and a Ratchet Wrench at 2 AM

I made a poll on Twitter on if I should write this article or not. The question was, "Should I write an article that demonstrates God's power to do miraculous things even though it will be met with skepticism (and probably disdain) by Atheists and Agnostics?" And you could answer yes or no. The...

www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm talking about specific research methodologies. You can't shoehorn a book into being a particular methodology just because you happen to like it.

Books aren't all the same, but if I look your boy up I find that his work is generally considered apologetic rather than academic, and that while he's celebrated within Christian circles he is not often cited outside of them. Considering I am skeptical of books as a category, there isn't really a case that this book in particular should be an exception.

I think this thread started in a good place but the vibes have become less and less immaculate. If you want to speculate about what's going on in my head we have a thread for that.

 

[Old Things]

I'm talking about specific research methodologies. You can't shoehorn a book into being a particular methodology just because you happen to like it.

Books aren't all the same, but if I look your boy up I find that his work is generally considered apologetic rather than academic, and that while he's celebrated within Christian circles he is not often cited outside of them. Considering I am skeptical of books as a category, there isn't really a case that this book in particular should be an exception.

I think this thread started in a good place but the vibes have become less and less immaculate. If you want to speculate about what's going on in my head we have a thread for that.

It's just crazy to me that you don't think you are biased. Like you have somehow pulled yourself up by your intellectual bootstraps. That's actually the worst kind of bias is not being aware that you are biased.

It's like, I read your veiled stance on things like sexuality and morality, and I sorta think it's pathetic that you have the stances that you do on those things while also trying to say that you are somehow less biased than me. My views on sexuality and morality are pretty much just common sense. Yours are pretty liberal in comparison. The worst part is that you pretend that you never actually make stances on things, but everyone knows that is BS.

In short, it does not matter how elegant or how sophisticated you think you are because we are all biased as humans. That's like Psychology 101. Simply being aware that people are biased does not make you less biased.

 

[Hadoblado]

If you want to attack my character, go to the thread that is specifically made for that.

 

[Old Things]

If you want to attack my character, go to the thread that is specifically made for that.

Link it because I have no idea what thread that is.

 

[Hadoblado]

Here you go

 

[fluffy]

"Caudate nucleus"

I wonder, would prayer be used in this area of the brain to realize / help with panic attacks? I have strong beliefs that I ask God to help me with and he does.

As for with objective unexplained events.

One of my dogs came back home even when he was injured..

I can't explain it unless I had this experience of nonlocality in my vision system as a dream became so real that it happened two places at once by interdimentional traveling?

My dog helps remind me to not panic.

 

[birdsnestfern]

This is the way the giant stones were flown in Many say, this bird has antigravity powers. Faravahar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faravahar

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The other side of the story is that sometimes things happen objectively, for which we have no natural answer.

That statement means a lot of things. It is different to say that we have no answers, vs it is impossible to have an answer.

Events happen. These "super-events" or events with supernatural intervention, is matter reacting with itself.

"Matter" of course being a over simplification, we don't even fully comprehend in itself. The periodic table is a wild thing.

I've experienced things like this. Here are two examples of healings that defy naturalist explanations. I encourage you to come up with a naturalistic explanation. So far, I have not come up with a plausible naturalistic explanation, but I have tried to come up with one. In short, what do you do when there is no ethereal experience that goes along with the miracle? What if the emotion you experience when witnessing the miracle is surprise? What if you are not expecting it, and it happens anyway? That is not going to be something that correlates with the brain playing a trick on you.

Like you were standing a little too much to the left and avoided a flying tire from decapitating you?

If something happens that supercedes the things you anticipated your entire life, you are definitely going to have a pretty ELEVATED experience.

It would be like drinking acid and Molly's without realizing it and then having sex and smoking a joint and asking yourself what you did to deserve such an experience.

The human brain is not a precise machine made engine. It's a work of art, and an engineering marvel.

But the trade off being able to adapt to our crazy environment, mother nature, has left its mark on us.

That's just how I feel though, I don't need you telling me how I feel is wrong. You just made the thread so I just wanted to interject with that perspective.

 

[Puffy]

Yes. We are spirits first, in temporary human form. Just talking about this sort of thing with people that also have these experiences feels confirming and healing somehow. But you can't just talk about it to anyone, as most people haven't widely accepted this and most are not six sensory types, they are five sensories. I've had many experiences with this, in many ways, angels, dreams, precognition, intuition, nature warnings, animals being sensitive, and people contacting me when thinking of them, and on and on. Also, I LOVE watching these metaphysical shows on Gaia TV to expand my mind, and ancient alien shows. Last night I was watching one on the stone structures that were built 17.000 years ago, with stone pillars that weigh 1,200 TONS each, that would be impossible to build even with modern technology, or thousands of people trying. They were not even local stones that they say were flown into place, (might be non linear fractal resonance) or antigravity type ancient knowledge). One of those is in Florida, its called Coral Castle. Others in Machu Pichu, Peru, the Andes, and even the Sphinx and Pyramids and Stonehenge were apparently built the same way, using resonance and sound waves. Also, the North and South poles are apparently huge gateways into the center of the inner earth. Inside there are civilizations that are guardians of our planet. I think they will keep us protected. And, when you hear "AS above, so below", that is what they are speaking of. That the real heaven is inside earth, and we are above, they are below. There are inner spaces inside earth, caves, crystals, and even an inner Sun, not as bright as the Sun we know. Anyway, we should stay open to and talk with people with similar experiences, its reaffirming.

And, indeed, its Supernatural x 1000 how these Megalithic stone structures were built. https://historytoknow.com/10-most-famous-megalithic-structures/

Yes, describing it as a sixth sense resonates with me as it’s unlike anything I’d experienced before it started. I’d find it hard to communicate to a younger version of me what it’s like. But it has opened doors to unusual types of experiences, many of which I don’t really understand.

For me, I’m confident that I’m not mad and that it’s a side effect of intense meditative practice. It is possible for it to slip into madness if taken too far and I’ve seen that happen. It’s why I make a lot of effort to be grounded in this world, through lots of exercise, study of academic sources, etc.

 

[dr froyd]

stone structures that were built 17.000 years ago, with stone pillars that weigh 1,200 TONS each, that would be impossible to build even with modern technology, or thousands of people trying.

the "thunder stone" in st.petersburg was 1250 tons, moved in 1770 using wooden logs, ropes, and a bunch of men.

it's not aliens, it's just human ingenuity. Give some creds to the ancestors