Searching for GOD...

[Dicky Underpants]

My understanding is that a theophany is an empirically detected divine manifestation. But there can be several interpretations of that phrase. Is Christ a theophany or was his empirical humanity just that with a non empirical awareness of his divinity in those who come to God through him

If you think all is God, how, even with an empirical encounter, can you say, that particular manifestation is exclusively God? I don’t begin to suppose your analysis answers these questions.

This strikes me as preposterous. You seem to be using 'empirical' in a sense that is totally contrary to its normal meaning. How the hell is anyone else supposed to evaluate your subjective theophany? Such an experience (like all of its kind) is the very essence of subjectivity; all any objective observer could detect is that the experiencer 'came over all funny'. And then that they reported afterwards, as you have done, that they believed that they experienced God. Nothing empirical about that at all.
Then we have Alan Burns' repeated anecdotal assurances from various quarters of people having emotional touches of the vapours, and are supposed to believe that all these are true evidence of divine experience. Having read a lot of the literature of this stuff from down the ages, and knowing how much these accounts differ in how they are related and how they are interpreted, I'm not persuaded by Alan's no doubt sincere attempts to convince us that his latter-day evangelical foamings have any more relevance than experiences of emotionally illiterate people who have been brainwashed into thinking that they've met God.
Now when I were nobbut a lad, I was convinced that I was able to project my astral body out of the window and through the roof and view magical landscapes as I flew (incidentally Melvyn Bragg testifies that he frequently had the same kind of out of the body experiences). Do you think I'm going to claim that these experiences could be empirically evaluated, just because Lord Bragg said he'd known something similar? All I can say is that the mind is capable of producing a vast array of extraordinary experiences which are far removed from our everyday lives, but whether they have any objective validity, or indeed humanitarian use, I very much doubt.
However, if one of Alan Burns' evangelical chums who'd previously been a wife-beater and serial rapist managed to change his behaviour to something a bit more civilised after his meeting with Jesus, I suppose that's not to be dismissed entirely. Chances are that the 'holy glow' will dissipate, as often happens in these cases, and "the last state will be worse than the first".

[Dicky Underpants]

I was not referring to any generalised testimonies of encounters with Gods.

I was asking you to provide examples of testimonies in which people encounter a profound and unexpected experience of God's love for them.  The point I was making was that the recent testimonies I have viewed all show a life changing awareness of God's unconditional love for them in the person of Jesus Christ.

Did you actually view the link I gave?  I can offer you dozens more of a similar nature, but I seriously doubt you can find any testimonies of similar encounters with other Gods.

From your manner of writing, you would seem to be trying to persuade us that vast numbers of people in modern times are having these life-changing experiences which all have identical features in common. This seems to me extremely glib, and not at all in keeping with how people have experienced the Christian life down the ages, except certain extremist millennial sects in the Middle Ages, and quite a few end-time sects in 19th century America. The path you're on seems very much one which might lead to such delusional movements as that led by John of Leyden.
There is a marked contrast between your emotional enthusiasm, and the experiences of certain seminal figures, not only in the Catholic Church, but in many branches of Christianity. Among these, the daily experience of Christ's unconditional love was certainly not the norm. In modern times Mother Theresa of Calcutta has confessed to most of her life being aware of God's absence. San Juan de la Cruz spoke of the "Dark night of soul". Hildegard of Bingen seems to have experienced a life of suffering and pain, only occasionally interrupted by certain 'celestial visions', which inspired her (and I don't think she ever claimed to have "met Jesus"). The list of significant religious figures who testify to great hardship and suffering is very long, and not at all in keeping with your cosy list of testimonies. Furthermore, as Torridon has commented, there are quite a few people who have 'opened their hearts' and been greeted only by a deathly silence.

[Dicky Underpants]

You are cherry picking your anecdotes to suit your bias, happily promoting stories of positive unsought 'encounters' but overlooking the less eye catching stories of those who seek but do not find, getting zero response from this God to their appeals for an encounter.

Alan has always been very coy about those.

[Alan Burns]

In modern times Mother Theresa of Calcutta has confessed to most of her life being aware of God's absence. San Juan de la Cruz spoke of the "Dark night of soul". Hildegard of Bingen seems to have experienced a life of suffering and pain, only occasionally interrupted by certain 'celestial visions', which inspired her (and I don't think she ever claimed to have "met Jesus"). The list of significant religious figures who testify to great hardship and suffering is very long, and not at all in keeping with your cosy list of testimonies.

I am aware of people for whom just one single, but profound experience of God's love was sufficient to maintain their faith throughout their lives and enable them to endure whatever hardship or suffering they encountered in this world.  The inner peace and joy which comes through accepting Christ does not shield us from the sufferings and hardships of this world - it gives us the strength and courage to deal with whatever comes - through the power of God's grace

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This strikes me as preposterous. You seem to be using 'empirical' in a sense that is totally contrary to its normal meaning. How the hell is anyone else supposed to evaluate your subjective theophany? Such an experience (like all of its kind) is the very essence of subjectivity; all any objective observer could detect is that the experiencer 'came over all funny'. And then that they reported afterwards, as you have done, that they believed that they experienced God. Nothing empirical about that at all.
Then we have Alan Burns' repeated anecdotal assurances from various quarters of people having emotional touches of the vapours, and are supposed to believe that all these are true evidence of divine experience. Having read a lot of the literature of this stuff from down the ages, and knowing how much these accounts differ in how they are related and how they are interpreted, I'm not persuaded by Alan's no doubt sincere attempts to convince us that his latter-day evangelical foamings have any more relevance than experiences of emotionally illiterate people who have been brainwashed into thinking that they've met God.
Now when I were nobbut a lad, I was convinced that I was able to project my astral body out of the window and through the roof and view magical landscapes as I flew (incidentally Melvyn Bragg testifies that he frequently had the same kind of out of the body experiences). Do you think I'm going to claim that these experiences could be empirically evaluated, just because Lord Bragg said he'd known something similar? All I can say is that the mind is capable of producing a vast array of extraordinary experiences which are far removed from our everyday lives, but whether they have any objective validity, or indeed humanitarian use, I very much doubt.
However, if one of Alan Burns' evangelical chums who'd previously been a wife-beater and serial rapist managed to change his behaviour to something a bit more civilised after his meeting with Jesus, I suppose that's not to be dismissed entirely. Chances are that the 'holy glow' will dissipate, as often happens in these cases, and "the last state will be worse than the first".

Sorry, I should have said that the claim is that the manifestation of the divine was physical and provided sensory data.
I was in discussion with Bluehillside who given he is a professed physicalist as I recall might think that ALL divine encounters are physical claims. The article he appeals to tells us though that not all divine encounters are theophanies.
Hillside would claim then that these encounters are not actual claims but white noise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are totally missing the point, Blue.

Let’s see shall we?

You can speculate and pontificate all you like from outside the faith, but until you encounter and accept the love of Jesus into your life you will never experience the complete and lasting happiness and fulfilment which faith can bring.

And then you fall at the first hurdle of wishful thinking – or, if you prefer, of the argumentum ad consequentiam. That you really like the notion of Jesus wanting you for a sunbeam tells you nothing at all about whether you’ve actually had an encounter with him, rather than an emotional episode that you’ve attached to the god story which you happen to like and with which you also happen to be most familiar.

Try again.   

You need to let down the barriers, allow the love of Jesus come into your life - and I will look forward to hearing or reading your own testimony.

If I “let down the barriers” of reason and evidence (as you have) what protection do I have against falling for any cock and bull story that happens to take my fancy (as you appear to have done)?

However seductive you find the notion of a man/god loving you, as your claim of an actual "encounter" depends entirely on false arguments you’d be on much safer ground just sticking with the faith part – ie, “I know I have no arguments to justify my faith beliefs, but they keep me warm at night nonetheless so I’m sticking with them”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Appeal to ridicule or horse laugh fallacy is not reductio ad absurdum. I'm not sure who it is you are trying to mislead here.

But the reductio ad absurdum is what I actually did. Perhaps if you bothered finding out what that expression means you could see for yourself where you went wrong?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry, I should have said that the claim is that the .anifestation of the divine was physical and provided sensory data.

Well, that’s some progress at least.

I was in discussion with Bluehillside who given he is a professed physicalism as I recall…

Presumably you meant “physicalist”, and I have professed no such thing. Actually I’ve spent a lot of time and effort over the years explaining to you many times precisely why I’m not a physicalist. It would help if you didn't lie about this. 

…might think that ALL divine encounters are physical claims.

FFS. I’ve yet to see any sound reasoning that would suggest that have been “divine encounters” of any sort at all.

The article he appeals to tells us though that not all divine encounters are theophanies. Hillside would claim then that these encounters are not actual claims but white noise.

No, Hillside would actually claim that the arguments he’s aware of made by those who claim to have had divine encounters (AB’s wishful thinking for example) have all been shit. That’s not to say that such a thing would be categorically impossible (any more than leprechauns leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows is categorically impossible), but it is to say that I have no good reason to think they’ve actually happened. You should stop lying about this too.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well, that’s some progress at least.

Presumably you meant “physicalist”, and I have professed no such thing. Actually I’ve spent a lot of time and effort over the years explaining to you many times precisely why I’m not a physicalist. It would help if you didn't lie about this. 

FFS. I’ve yet to see any sound reasoning that would suggest that have been “divine encounters” of any sort at all.

No, Hillside would actually claim that the arguments he’s aware of made by those who claim to have had divine encounters (AB’s wishful thinking for example) have all been shit. That’s not to say that such a thing would be categorically impossible (any more than leprechauns leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows is categorically impossible), but it is to say that I have no good reason to think they’ve actually happened. You should stop lying about this too.   

Appeal to ridicule.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Appeal to ridicule.

Just repeating the same mistake doesn’t make it less of a mistake.

The appeal to ridicule would be something like you saying “I believe in god” and me replying, “in that case you may as well believe in leprechauns”. The reductio ad absurdum on the other hand addresses not the claim, but the justifying reasoning for it. When your reason for believing in God could also equally justify my belief in leprechauns, that tells you either that leprechauns are real (ie, your reasoning is sound) of that your reasoning is false.

What actually happened last time is that you shifted ground from “divine encounters are empirical” to telling us that you can’t say that (supposed) divine encounters aren’t empirically detected. That then became your justifying argument – ie, that you have no basis to deny the possibility of empirically validated divine encounters.

I then took your reconfigured justifying argument, and pointed out than not being able to deny the possibility of something could also be used to justify anything else – leprechauns included.

And that’s called a reductio ad absurdum.

QED           

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just repeating the same mistake doesn’t make it less of a mistake.

The appeal to ridicule would be something like you saying “I believe in god” and me replying, “in that case you may as well believe in leprechauns”. The reductio ad absurdum on the other hand addresses not the claim, but the justifying reasoning for it. When your reason for believing in God could also equally justify my belief in leprechauns, that tells you either that leprechauns are real (ie, your reasoning is sound) of that your reasoning is false.

What actually happened last time is that you shifted ground from “divine encounters are empirical” to telling us that you can’t say that (supposed) divine encounters aren’t empirically detected. That then became your justifying argument – ie, that you have no basis to deny the possibility of empirically validated divine encounters.

I then took your reconfigured justifying argument, and pointed out than not being able to deny the possibility of something could also be used to justify anything else – leprechauns included.

And that’s called a reductio ad absurdum.

QED           

I've never declared divine encounters are empirical.
I would move that that is what you expected.

The only theophany I think I've commented on is Christ but have pondered whether it was God who was seen empirically or Christ's humanity. Also I don't believe I've promoted transubstantiation.

That said, I cannot disprove Transubstantiation.

[ProfessorDavey]

That said, I cannot disprove Transubstantiation.

Vlad - can you disprove:

Leprechauns
Flying spaghetti monsters
Invisible teapots orbiting other planets

If not then why single out transubstantiation. Seems that you want to use some disingenuous logistical sleight of hand to try to evoke some notion of evidence, but of course the same argument could be just as easily be used to evoke some kind of evidence for leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters or invisible teapots orbiting other planets.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You:

I've never declared divine encounters are empirical.

Also you (Reply #51784):

My understanding is that a theophany is an empirically detected divine manifestation.

Small hint: if you think flat out lying is a legitimate tactic, you might want to consider making the lie less easy to falsify. 

I would move that that is what you expected.

And I “move” that that’s what you actually said (see above).

The only theophany I think I've commented on is Christ but have pondered whether it was God who was seen empirically or Christ's humanity.

Nope. What you actually said is what I quoted verbatim above: “My understanding is that a theophany is an empirically detected divine manifestation.” There was no attempt there to narrow your discussion of theophany to stories about Christ only (not that it would have made any difference to the point even if you had).   

Also I don't believe I've promoted transubstantiation.

And I don’t believe I’ve promoted leprechauns. So?

That said, I cannot disprove Transubstantiation.

That said, I cannot disprove leprechauns. What point do you even think you’re making here?

Look, even for you this is a pretty epic set of crashes and burns. Dry your eyes mate and try again. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad - can you disprove:

Leprechauns
Flying spaghetti monsters
Invisible teapots orbiting other planets

If not then why single out transubstantiation. Seems that you want to use some disingenuous logistical sleight of hand to try to evoke some notion of evidence, but of course the same argument could be just as easily be used to evoke some kind of evidence for leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters or invisible teapots orbiting other planets.

Why have I talked about transubstantiation in a conversation about theophany. What a strange question.

If you want to talk about Leprechauns, Teapots etc. Start a new thread?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You:

Also you (Reply #51784):

Small hint: if you think flat out lying is a legitimate tactic, you might want to consider making the lie less easy to falsify. 

And I “move” that that’s what you actually said (see above).

Nope. What you actually said is what I quoted verbatim above: “My understanding is that a theophany is an empirically detected divine manifestation.” There was no attempt there to narrow your discussion of theophany to stories about Christ only (not that it would have made any difference to the point even if you had).   

And I don’t believe I’ve promoted leprechauns. So?

That said, I cannot disprove leprechauns. What point do you even think you’re making here?

Look, even for you this is a pretty epic set of crashes and burns. Dry your eyes mate and try again.

L....OK
LE....OK
LEP.....Lepers? Leprosy
LEPR.......yesssss?
LEPRE........Appeal to ridicule.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why have I talked about transubstantiation in a conversation about theophany. What a strange question.

If you want to talk about Leprechauns, Teapots etc. Start a new thread?

So you still don't grasp how the reductio ad absurdum works then. Not sure I can express it anymore simply for you to be honest. Oh well.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So you still don't grasp how the reductio ad absurdum works then. Not sure I can express it anymore simply for you to be honest. Oh well.

Horse laugh is not reductio ad absurdum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

L....OK
LE....OK
LEP.....Lepers? Leprosy
LEPR.......yesssss?
LEPRE........Appeal to ridicule.

Not even a glimmer of understanding there. Once again then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Keep trying...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Horse laugh is not reductio ad absurdum.

And a reductio ad absurdum is not a Horse's laugh. That's where you keep fucking up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And a reductio ad absurdum is not a Horse's laugh. That's where you keep fucking up.

You mentioned ⁴Leprechauns Hillside. Your'e guilty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You mentioned ⁴Leprechauns Hillside.

Dear god but you struggle. What on earth to you think the “absurdum” of “reductio ad absurdum” means?

Of course I mentioned leprechauns, and of course I mentioned them because their existence is absurd. And that’s because when an argument attempted to justify another belief (eg, “God”) also justifies leprechauns, then you know the argument is a bad one. And that's called an argumentum ad absurdum.

(Wearily) here once again is a link that explains this to you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

If the Wiki article really is beyond your intellectual pay grade perhaps you could find an averagely bright ten-year-old to explain it to you?
       

Your'e guilty.

(sic)

No, you are – guilty either of failing to comprehend a simple argument, or of being too lazy to find out.

Oh, and while we’re here you were caught out in another lie a few replies ago:

“You:

I've never declared divine encounters are empirical.

Also you (Reply #51784):

My understanding is that a theophany is an empirically detected divine manifestation.

”   

I notice that you’ve just a walked away from it though. What do you think it says about someone’s character when they behave this way?   

[jeremyp]

My understanding is that a theophany is an empirically detected divine manifestation.

Lol. Good one. How many divine manifestations have ever been empirically detected?

But there can be several interpretations of that phrase. Is Christ a theophany or was his empirical humanity just that with a non empirical awareness of his divinity in those who come to God through him

I don't think there's any reason to believe Christ was anything more than a human cult leader whose cult got lucky.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Dear god but you struggle. What on earth to you think the “absurdum” of “reductio ad absurdum” means?

Of course I mentioned leprechauns, and of course I mentioned them because their existence is absurd. And that’s because when an argument attempted to justify another belief (eg, “God”) also justifies leprechauns, then you know the argument is a bad one. And that's called an argumentum ad absurdum.

(Wearily) here once again is a link that explains this to you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

If the Wiki article really is beyond your intellectual pay grade perhaps you could find an averagely bright ten-year-old to explain it to you?
         (sic)

No, you are – guilty either of failing to comprehend a simple argument, or of being too lazy to find out.

Oh, and while we’re here you were caught out in another lie a few replies ago:

“You:

Also you (Reply #51784):
”   

I notice that you’ve just a walked away from it though. What do you think it says about someone’s character when they behave this way?

You mentioned Leprechauns again. You admit to horses laugh fallacy and chuck in words like reductio ad absurdum to throw off the scent.
You must absolutely hate the readers of this post.
It's pitiful seeing the simple and innocent trust they put in you stretching their keen wee atheist mittens to you for your "wisdom".

[jeremyp]

I was asking you to provide examples of testimonies in which people encounter a profound and unexpected experience of God's love for them.

Why would love be special? It's one human emotion among many. If somebody encountered Quetzalcoatl and had a profound and unexpected experience of fear, why is that less valid than your experience, just because the emotion is less pleasant?

As a side point and as we are coming up to Christmas, I just read on the Wikipedia page that Quetzalcoatl was born of a virgin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lol. Good one. How many divine manifestations have ever been empirically detected?

Actual, don't know (and neither do you)reported, loads

I don't think there's any reason to believe Christ was anything more than a human cult leader whose cult got lucky.

I reason that it is not impossible for him to be so and that possibility is greater than actual infinities and circular hierarchies.