I couldn't resist.

Of course an experience of baptism of the holy spirit and an experience of seer/prophecy or metaphysician/psychic is personally experienced.

But a psychologist ought to be able to distinguish between a psychotic/delusional episode and something else.

You should read Glimpses of the Devil by Peck. Here I'll get it for you.

Here it is. A very easy read and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. The prose is quite clean.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eBa...um=4&ct=result

I'm pretty sure being psychotic means that you're unable to distinguish psychosis...

My reading queue is pretty stacked at the moment, but maybe I'll read Peck sometime.

I think the whole book is under that link. It'll be a quick read for with some of the stuff you're used to.

Would you care to specifically cite which scientific theory you are claiming that I am ignoring?

In this case I use it synonymously with 'purpose'.

Yes I believe in the supernatural. I also believe the supernatural has perfectly natural explanations. I also believe that if there wasn't a supernatural there would never have been what we today call science.

Religion I think would have come around anyway.

To clarify my viewpoint; I think you have to realize that something lacks an explanation...ie. that it is supernatural before you can come up with an idea of gathering knowledge that resembles the scientific one in order to learn something about it. I don't think that idea is necessary for religion which is more based on the idea that there is an explanation but that it is impossible to find it.

i was speaking in general about christians who deny evolution. not necessary you, but possibly you.

In other words, you're taking my specfic comments about the reasons I believe in the existence of some sort of supernatural to make a broad claim about Christians who deny evolution.

This is an 11 on the asinine scale.

This sounds perfectly logical from a sociological perspective but how do you explain NDEs? Or the Miracle of Fatima?

Then I'm not sure what your objection is.

Since I've repeated twice that science is, roughly, 'the interconnection of all true statements'; and you haven't disagreed, I'll take that as common ground.

Then there are many scientific uses of 'purpose':
- The purpose of the peacock's tail is to attract mates. (Evolutionary biology.)
- The purpose of his comment was to avoid cognitive dissonance. (Intentional psychology.)
- The purpose of a microscope is to amplify images. (Engineering.)

And so forth. So if there was a true statement:
- "_____ is the purpose of life."
then the 'purpose of life' would a scientific concept as well.

The problem is just that nothing goes in the blank in a way that is obviously 'true'. So it's not that the 'purpose of life' is outside science; it's outside any particular meaning AT ALL.

If the miracle of Fatima occurred (I am trying to recall this - giant spinning wheel in the sky?), wouldn't that lend credence to Catholicism being the correct religion?

Huh? Care to name a few?

This is a rhetorical question. At the very least, it is a subjective one. The meaning of life for me may be very different than the meaning of life for you, or that of that of the head of the world's largest heroin cartel. There is no one correct answer. In that way, I disagree with others (and agree with you), that this isn't a scientific question. But so what?

And just how would you answer this question anyway? I'm guessing that for many believers it has something to do with performing God's bidding so you will be allowed to live in some magical kingdom in the sky after you die here on earth. In a way, the meaning of this life for many is to avoid death and torture after they're dead. How ironic...

You've mentioned this in other threads and I'm still not sure why it impresses you so. It's a known fact that isolated people worship very different things. From sky gods, to mountain gods, to wooden totem poles, to animals, to the Juju of the forest. From this, you draw the conclusion of a single supernatural being? On the contrary, I would think this should cause extreme suspicion of such a far fetched conjecture.

Isn't it much more likely that the human mind has a need to make sense of the unexplainable? This, and this alone, is sufficient to account for all supernatural phenomenon ever invented by mankind past and present. The world is filled with believers who won at blackjack on the same day their horoscope read: "You will come into money. Today is a day to take chances". How else to explain it?

The religious have a lot to gain in debate formats by ignoring just how specific their beliefs are. If a single verifiably untouched tribe was found to worship Jesus Christ, my conception of reality would be turned on its head.

Well said.

Convince me that the scientific method is a valid way of obtaining data from the universe using the scientific method. Devise a testable hypothesis and an experiment with which to verify your claim.

Where did I draw that conclusion from this particular piece of evidence? You should reread the posts more carefully.

Why is this "much more likely"? Why is this a "sufficient" explanation of anything? All you've done is assert your position without supplying any argument to support it. I'm not establishing an equivalence among all forms of spirituality, merely that it's quite plausible that some "supernatural" things exist.

There was a time when you would at least try to keep up the pretense of logical conversation. Now, you've resorted to changing subjects and accusing people of putting your own words in your mouth. You said, and I quote:

"There are MANY things that we know without using the scientific method."

I'm asking you to name just ONE!

Because in response to a request asking you to describe how you have come to hold a belief that supernatural events happen and have happened, you answered as follows:

"Historical perspective - Every culture has some representation of a spiritual world of some sort, so it seems to be a universal theme in the human experience"

That's where. I take it supernatural events are necessarily caused by a supernatural being. Or are you going to take us on another detour and accuse me of putting more words into your mouth?

We know the scientific method works (or is at least a highly effective way of discovering patterns) but the scientific method is not testable via the scientific method.

Furthermore, the scientific method cannot prove that the scientific method is the only way with which we can determine information about the universe.

If you cannot follow the logic, I cannot help you. The importance here is to understand the difference between the premise and the conclusion.

wow

Your post:

I could well be misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you're saying I conclude the existence of a *SINGLE* supernatural being. This does not follow from anything I've said. If you're saying I'm saying something different, please be a little more clear.

The "so what" is simply that if one wishes to deal with such a question comprehensively, you have to work outside the framework of science, since it's not a scientific question. (I'm glad we agree on that. )

Ultimately, I guess what was intended to be the more important point in my original post was overlooked by most.

I believe in the possibility of the supernatural since by definition, it's impossible to know for sure if things are happening outside the observable realm, or not. Could there be? Sure. Might there not be? Sure.

Now, if the discussion is if there is a way to tell for sure (presumably through religion) I'm a skeptic. Can't say for sure either way.

(I would argue that religion is a net positive from a sociological standpoint, but that's a huge tangent and worthy of a separate post entirely.)