(September 17, 2015 at 6:47 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm originally from Northern Ireland, I live in NZ now.
I agree that the Old Testament Prophecies appear to 'link up' with the New Testament stories, but that's to be expected: The NT authors and compilers had a vested interest in making their Saviour appear to fill OT prophecies. The technical term for this is 'cooking the books.' But that's as may be. I'm a little surprised that you don't see the conflict this creates. You're taking one set of stories that you would like to be true and using them to substantiate another set of stories that you would like to be true. Using the OT to confirm the NT is a lot like using 'The Deathly Hallows' to confirm 'The Philosopher's Stone'. Since neither set of stories is veridical in any meaningful sense, you really are engaging in wishful thinking.
I don't doubt for a moment that some people have what they assume to be supernatural experiences. But this is the same problem. Humans are natural beings. We live in a natural universe. As such, natural explanations are always to be preferred over supernatural ones. Claims of the supernatural always fail during serious investigation. But even if a natural explanation isn't found doesn't mean we resort to a supernatural one.
Ten (or more) individuals having supernatural experiences rarely - if ever - back each other up. I know several people who claim to have see what they call angels, but the descriptions and circumstances are all different. I don't know if you're at all familiar with the USian stage magicians Penn and Teller, but they perform an amazing illusion where Teller appears to extract gold coins from the air and turn them into live goldfish. If they perform this trick before 100 people and 10 of them claim that the coins were really turned into fish, does that mean we should accept their testimony? Of course not, because Teller is known to be a professional illusionist. Personal testimony doesn't equal proof, or even a good reason to believe.serious investigation
No, I do not think that supernatural events can be proved by natural means. But natural means are all human beings are able to employ, which is why supernatural events cannot be proved by any means. They have to be accepted as articles of faith, which is exactly the same as wishful thinking.
Boru
If 10 people said they saw an angel, why do the circumstances need to be the same and the angels look alike? Your assertion that when supernatural occurrences are seriously investigated thy always fail isn't correct. What is correct is that supernatural occurrences cannot be proven when investigated. Often they are proven to be fraud or imagination, but very often there is nothing to disprove them. That's because science is not equipped to test the supernatural. You are right that saying that believing something like christainity requires faith, but it's not an unfounded belief. Also, if I and many others have a supernatural experience, I'm going to believe it, especially if I don't have a history of seeing pink elephants, because I'm the who had the experience.
