Speaking in 'tongues'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

a delusion of what?

Of a supernatural experience.

With such incredibly stupid questions, one might think you are running away again.

How can an experience not explicable in terms of the natural possibly be er, natural?............What is the matter with you?

Why do you think delusion is not natural?

Jeremy. You have said one can be deluded into thinking they have had an experience of the supernatural.
Firstly, there is the problem that the deluded never check if they are deluded. If one checks that the experience is natural. If it is explicable then one knows one has not had the supernatural experience. But if it is inexplicable in natural terms then it is supernatural.

Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by deluded into thinking one has had a supernatural experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are matters which science cannot deal with (source BTEC Level 3 Applied science).

Does it give a list? Can you tell us what those matters are?

Why,......are you on the brink of writing a stern letter to somebody?

No.  I think you read that somewhere without understanding it and now you carry it like a talisman hoping it will prevent people from realising you are an empty vessel.  That fact that you, yet again, evade answering the question confirms my thought.

Ah, so you have written a stern epistle.....to me.

There are some matters that science cannot deal with. To believe that is not so is what we call scientism.....and yes, Jeremy I am saying it as though it was a bad thing ...and which you seem to be guilty of.

[Hope]

Quite sure!

And your evidence for that assurance?

[2Corrie]

The answer to the first thing is, of course, if it is not 'natural' then it is 'supernatural'.

That's not really an answer. "How do you tell if something is not natural?" is really the same question as "how do you tell if something is supernatural?"

The answer to the second is that I cannot think of science in any other context than matter/energy and therefore I cannot offer anything like it.

So you can't tell if your supernatural experience is really just delusion.

Do you think the apostles were deluded?  Did they willingly die for this delusion?

[jeremyp]

Firstly, there is the problem that the deluded never check if they are deluded.

Don't they?  Maybe your memory that you have checked your experiences for delusion is itself a delusion.

But if it is inexplicable in natural terms then it is supernatural.

How do you know that something is inexplicable in natural terms?  What if you just don't know what the naturalistic explanation is?

[jeremyp]

There are some matters that science cannot deal with. To believe that is not so is what we call scientism.....and yes, Jeremy I am saying it as though it was a bad thing ...and which you seem to be guilty of.

Still no list of matters inaccessible to science then.

The empty vessel is making some noise.

[jeremyp]

Do you think the apostles were deluded?

Yes, quite possibly.

Did they willingly die for this delusion?

Part of the problem with being deluded is that you don't know you are suffering from delusion.  Of course they would die for a delusion if they thought it was real and worth dying for,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, there is the problem that the deluded never check if they are deluded.

Don't they?  Maybe your memory that you have checked your experiences for delusion is itself a delusion.

But if it is inexplicable in natural terms then it is supernatural.

How do you know that something is inexplicable in natural terms? 

Because naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural. How can it possibly explain God for instance if he ''shows'' up.

Since you positively assert natural causes you need to come up with convincing evidence that supernatural experiences have a natural reason.....with no final appeal to philosophical naturalism.

[2Corrie]

Do you think the apostles were deluded?

Yes, quite possibly.

Did they willingly die for this delusion?

Part of the problem with being deluded is that you don't know you are suffering from delusion.  Of course they would die for a delusion if they thought it was real and worth dying for,

ok, let's run with it, what could possibly have caused them to have been convinced that they saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord ?

[jeremyp]

Because naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural. How can it possibly explain God for instance if he ''shows'' up.

There's almost no danger of God showing up though.

Since you positively assert natural causes you need to come up with convincing evidence that supernatural experiences have a natural reason.....with no final appeal to philosophical naturalism.

The evidence is simple and compelling. No person who has had what they call a supernatural experience has ever come up with any evidence that it actually was supernatural. 

Nice attempt to shift the burden of evidence. This is itself good evidence that you can't back up your argument because you resort to dishonesty instead.

[jeremyp]

ok, let's run with it, what could possibly have caused them to have been convinced that they saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord ?

You need to learn to walk before you run. Who exactly do you think saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord. What evidence do you have that these sightings and interactions were anything more than visions?

[2Corrie]

ok, let's run with it, what could possibly have caused them to have been convinced that they saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord ?

You need to learn to walk before you run. Who exactly do you think saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord. What evidence do you have that these sightings and interactions were anything more than visions?

So you think they were visions?

[2Corrie]

who saw and interacted?

How about we start with the women at the tomb?

Women's testimony was worth diddly squat in 1st century Judea, so why would anyone listen to them? Indeed why bother to record their testimony?

[jeremyp]

So you think they were visions?

What evidence do you have that they were anything more? 

[jeremyp]

who saw and interacted?

How about we start with the women at the tomb?

Women's testimony was worth diddly squat in 1st century Judea, so why would anyone listen to them? Indeed why bother to record their testimony?

What women at the tomb? They only appear as characters in late novelisations of Jesus' life. Do you have the authentic testimony of any women at a tomb?

[2Corrie]

who saw and interacted?

How about we start with the women at the tomb?

Women's testimony was worth diddly squat in 1st century Judea, so why would anyone listen to them? Indeed why bother to record their testimony?

What women at the tomb? They only appear as characters in late novelisations of Jesus' life. Do you have the authentic testimony of any women at a tomb?

ok let's run with your idea about 'novelisations' chuckle. Why include worthless eyewitness of women? why make them first to see the Lord?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural. How can it possibly explain God for instance if he ''shows'' up.

There's almost no danger of God showing up though.

Since you positively assert natural causes you need to come up with convincing evidence that supernatural experiences have a natural reason.....with no final appeal to philosophical naturalism.

The evidence is simple and compelling. No person who has had what they call a supernatural experience has ever come up with any evidence that it actually was supernatural. 

Nice attempt to shift the burden of evidence. This is itself good evidence that you can't back up your argument because you resort to dishonesty instead.

Sorry Jezzer but if you are saying that supernatural events are really natural events or could be natural events then that is a positive assertion and therefore you have the burden of proof therein.

[jeremyp]

ok let's run with your idea about 'novelisations' chuckle. Why include worthless eyewitness of women? why make them first to see the Lord?

You have to make the story credible. The women had a credible reason to go to the tomb because it was their job to tend to the dead.

Note also that having women be the first people to find the empty tomb allows you to deploy exactly the same argument you just deployed.

[jeremyp]

Sorry Jezzer but if you are saying that supernatural events are really natural events or could be natural events

I'm not saying anything.  You are the one who is claiming that some event is supernatural.

[2Corrie]

ok let's run with your idea about 'novelisations' chuckle. Why include worthless eyewitness of women? why make them first to see the Lord?

You have to make the story credible. The women had a credible reason to go to the tomb because it was their job to tend to the dead.

Note also that having women be the first people to find the empty tomb allows you to deploy exactly the same argument you just deployed.

So they made up the story about the women. Meanwhile the message of the resurrected Messiah was spreading like wild fire around Jerusalem. Why didn't someone produce the body?

[Nearly Sane]

Nothing in the writings used to back up the historicity of Jesus indicates any awareness of the idea of a physical resurrection or even a desire to disprove any of it. Further it is a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of religion Of the time to suggest the idea of disproof in this sense.

[jeremyp]

So they made up the story about the women. Meanwhile the message of the resurrected Messiah was spreading like wild fire around Jerusalem. Why didn't someone produce the body?

Like wildfire?  Really?  How come history is practically silent on the matter?

[2Corrie]

! silent ! LOL

[Nearly Sane]

! silent ! LOL

Except it is in the sense I already covered. Your lack of knowledge of that might be worth of a hearty chortle but it is hugely problematic to any claim of people either being aware enough of the claim or in general approaching the idea of religious claims in this hugely anachronistic way,you were suggesting. Essentially in historical terms the resurrection isn't even a non event.

[jeremyp]

! silent ! LOL

Show me contemporary records of Christianity spreading like wildfire in Jerusalem.