Why do Christians reject the supernatural claims of non-Christians?

[Aloysium]

OOPs! - Decided to deleted my post - It got all botched up in the editing and I lost the most important parts.
It would happen before too with the old system from time to time. Not complaining . . . yet.

 

[mkoopman]

There is a testing concern here. Your understanding of what you felt may be a supernatural event. Sounds like it could be a physiological event. Consulting your doctor about cold flashes may be a good idea.
Burning chariots and bushes are more probably related to a burning fever or as an effect of illness of some nature. You should consider a health check-up before sackcloth and ashes if you ask me.
Really you should consider a physiological basis for your event. This may be a sign from God that you need to see your primary care physician.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I was not under drug. This is what happened to me: I was lying on the bed and I suddenly felt very cold so I went under blanket to warm up myself but I felt my breath so cold too. I was freezing in spite the fact that the room was warm. Suddenly my heart beat started growing very high and I gradually lost my consciousness. The last thing I heard was “the self”. Next morning I just woke up after having a strange dream. I was wondering what I was doing in here.

Angel of death teased me several times showing the face death to me but that time was completely different story.

Claims like this are EXACTLY why I do not believe anything “supernatural” unless it has been vetted by the Church or a scientific body. There are many reasonable, scientific explanations including oxygen deprivation from sleep apnea, being over-tired or other non-supernatural phenomenon that could have occurred.

It may be that it’s true, but science needs to eliminate any natural reasons before the supernatural is even entertained.

 

[ericc]

It is clear you never died in the strict sense of the word. For some undetermined reason, your senses are “faulty” that day. Could be due to chemical reasons affecting the brain from food, drink, stress etc. Hallucinations are not supernatural and can be induced chemically via ingestion of certain mushrooms or plants. Have you ruled out those? Perhaps you ate some psilocybin aka magic mushrooms by mistake thinking they were normal mushrooms.

But to be considered supernatural, you need to disclose some sort of supernatural information to corroborate your experience. Your above description is insufficient to say the least to establish supernatural causes. And if they are not supported by eyewitnesses and other supporting information, it is difficult to get anyone to accept these as supernatural, Christian or not. Moreover on an internet forum, it is very very difficult to do so. Most likely, people will just refer you to seek medical help. By now you would understand why many people wouldn’t share these sort of experiences readily, other than immediate family members or people close to you.

 

[hymin]

True supernatural experiences give harmony in accord with sound spiritual theology. The recipients of supernatural experiences give devout desires and strive for obedience with the Magisterium.

What is helpful to note in this discussion - the means of understanding - that the hidden aspects of the soul are brought to light. These aspects, i. g, why a soul becomes obedient?, how does a soul grow in union with God?

 

[Annie]

Oh, alien abductions!

First, I would not call an alien abduction a supernatural experience; imho it would simply be natural.

Second, let us consider alien abduction as we would a crime. If I went to the police and said, “Geogias stole my television,” the police would want more evidence than just my saying it, no? And would you not be happy that the police wanted that additional evidence instead of taking the word of a vindictive person like me?

Not a single alien abduction I have read about has included any supporting evidence that could not be explained by more normal activities. There is no evidence of alien transport, for example.

 

[STT]

There is a testing concern here. Your understanding of what you felt may be a supernatural event. Sounds like it could be a physiological event. Consulting your doctor about cold flashes may be a good idea.

Burning chariots and bushes are more probably related to a burning fever or as an effect of illness of some nature. You should consider a health check-up before sackcloth and ashes if you ask me.

Really you should consider a physiological basis for your event. This may be a sign from God that you need to see your primary care physician.

I already talk with many doctors, those who believe in supernatural phenomena and those who don’t believe. I believe that I have supernatural experiences. You are free to believe it or not.

 

[STT]

Claims like this are EXACTLY why I do not believe anything “supernatural” unless it has been vetted by the Church or a scientific body. There are many reasonable, scientific explanations including oxygen deprivation from sleep apnea, being over-tired or other non-supernatural phenomenon that could have occurred.

It may be that it’s true, but science needs to eliminate any natural reasons before the supernatural is even entertained.

What science has to do with supernatural phenomena? Could you please explain how a scientific method could be used to show that a phenomena is supernatural instead of natural?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

What science has to do with supernatural phenomena? Could you please explain how a scientific method could be used to show that a phenomena is supernatural instead of natural?

All miracles attributed to saints must first be checked to see if they have any natural reason for occurring. For instance, let’s say that a child goes blind and is cured after touching a relic. The church will examine medical records to see if there is a natural reason–like fluid finally draining–that explains what happens. When there is no natural reason only then the church will declare the miracle.

 

[STT]

All miracles attributed to saints must first be checked to see if they have any natural reason for occurring. For instance, let’s say that a child goes blind and is cured after touching a relic. The church will examine medical records to see if there is a natural reason–like fluid finally draining–that explains what happens. When there is no natural reason only then the church will declare the miracle.

There might be a natural explanation which science didn’t achieve yet. How could we discard that other possibility? We can do many things now that look like miracles in eyes of people who used to live 1000 years ago.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

There might be a natural explanation which science didn’t achieve yet. How could we discard that other possibility? We can do many things now that look like miracles in eyes of people who used to live 1000 years ago.

You’ll have to take that up with the Vatican. This is how the Church examines miracles.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

No… I claimed that Christians reject claims of alien abduction based on lack of evidence! (And I still stand on that claim.)

But, that wasn’t a general claim that Christians reject all claims based on evidence; sometimes, doctrine comes into play, as in the example of reincarnation.

I’ve read your posts here and everyone else and so far nothing here has convinced me that Christians have evidence for rejecting the supernatural claims of non-Christians. When someone makes a claim that Christians reject things that lack evidence, I assume that therefore everything Christians accept would have evidence. If there was evidence, then you and others would’ve presented it.

My conclusion on all of this is that we don’t really know which experiences are valid ( the obvious hoaxes would be false), nor do we have any objective means to deal with the issue. That doesn’t mean you “reject” claims but rather you should remain agnostic - that is, unless you have religious dogma/doctrine to protect.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I’ve read your posts here and everyone else and so far nothing here has convinced me that Christians have evidence for rejecting the supernatural claims of non-Christians. When someone makes a claim that Christians reject things that lack evidence, I assume that therefore everything Christians accept would have evidence. If there was evidence, then you and others would’ve presented it.

My conclusion on all of this is that we don’t really know which experiences are valid ( the obvious hoaxes would be false), nor do we have any objective means to deal with the issue. That doesn’t mean you “reject” claims but rather you should remain agnostic - that is, unless you have a doctrine to protect.

We do have objective means to determine if a miracle did or did not occur. We have scientists, doctors, physicists, engineers and many people with knowledge of the physical world who can help us separate the difference between a claim that has a likely reason and a claim that has no explainable precipitating factors.

The Vatican does just that. When a medical miracle occurs it seeks out both doctors that it trusts from within and secular, unbiased doctors to examine the claim.

This is the kind of vetting that all porpoted miracles and supernatural experiences should have in order to be seen as valid.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve read your posts here and everyone else and so far nothing here has convinced me that Christians have evidence for rejecting the supernatural claims of non-Christians.

A couple of thoughts:

• When a person makes a claim about a physical event in the physical world, it is up to the person making the claim to present evidence, and not up to the person being asked to accept the claim to “have evidence for rejecting the claim.” So, when a person makes a claim of supernatural events in the world, those listening (be they Christian or non-Christian) must evaluate the evidence of the person making the claim and then accept or reject it on that basis. In a sense, then, (unless I’m misunderstanding you), you’ve got it backward: Christians don’t need to provide evidence that rejects claims, in the same way that no one needs to provide evidence that someone else’s claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
• On the other hand, you might be wondering why Christians don’t accept claims of, for example, reincarnation. That’s a horse of a different color: Christians reject that claim straight-out, because it conflicts with the truths expressed in the Bible (which we consider the Word of God). Therefore, even if someone were to attempt to convince Christians of the notion of reincarnation, Christians would reply “I’m sorry, but God tells us that there is only ‘one life and after that, judgment’, so I will not believe in any man-made story that conflicts with God’s word.”
• Finally, Christians might have physical or eyewitness counter-evidence of their own to offer. That counter-evidence might come from a Christian worldview, but that doesn’t mean that it’s “Christian evidence.”

When someone makes a claim that Christians reject things that lack evidence, I assume that therefore everything Christians accept would have evidence.

That would be a bad assumption, then. That’s like saying “if it’s not raining, therefore it’s sunny out.” It doesn’t follow logically.

If there was evidence, then you and others would’ve presented it.

Evidence against supernatural claims? Again – it’s up to the person making the claim to prove the case.

That doesn’t mean you “reject” claims but rather you should remain agnostic - that is, unless you have religious dogma/doctrine to protect.

That’s a reasonable approach. However, what’s the practical difference between “I do not accept your unsupported claim that little green men from Mars exists” and “I reject your claim that little green men from Mars exists, because of the lack of evidence in your assertion”?

 

[MPat]

I’ve read your posts here and everyone else and so far nothing here has convinced me that Christians have evidence for rejecting the supernatural claims of non-Christians.

The claim you wanted to discuss is not “Christians have evidence for rejecting the supernatural claims of non-Christians” - it was that Christians reject some claims because of lack of supported evidence. Why would you expect to be convinced of the claim you didn’t even offer to discuss?

When someone makes a claim that Christians reject things that lack evidence, I assume that therefore everything Christians accept would have evidence.

So, in other words, you rushed to ill-considered conclusion based on wild misinterpretation of what someone said?

Then try to avoid doing that again.

My conclusion on all of this is that we don’t really know which experiences are valid ( the obvious hoaxes would be false), nor do we have any objective means to deal with the issue. That doesn’t mean you “reject” claims but rather you should remain agnostic

Is that a precise description of your position? If it is, let’s make an experiment. You yourself have reported an experience here:

I’ve read your posts here and everyone else and so far nothing here has convinced me that Christians have evidence for rejecting the supernatural claims of non-Christians.

In fact, we can separate that into two experiences (reading and not being convinced).

Do you think we (or even you) should stay agnostic about those your claims?

(I hope you won’t claim they count as “the obvious hoaxes”, although, technically, that is also an option. )

Naturally, if you were imprecise in describing you position (which is probable), it would be a good idea to restate it more precisely.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

In my view, all of what you’re saying is a claim. In the near future I’ll open another thread on your claim because I would like to see the reports of the investigations and the types of evidence that’s admitted. If the evidence is more testimony and not empirical, then that begins doubt in my mind.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The claim you wanted to discuss is not “Christians have evidence for rejecting the supernatural claims of non-Christians” - it was that Christians reject some claims because of lack of supported evidence. Why would you expect to be convinced of the claim you didn’t even offer to discuss?

Not quite. In post 1, I did bring up someone who claimed that Christians reject claims that have no evidence for them. But I used that claim to discuss another topic, which was:
“In terms of evidence, why do Christians reject the claims of supernatural experiences from non-Christians?”. This is clearly posted in the OP. I figured if Christians reject things that lack evidence, then surely that would mean things that they accept have evidence otherwise it’s a double standard.

So, in other words, you rushed to ill-considered conclusion based on wild misinterpretation of what someone said?

Then try to avoid doing that again.

To a degree, yes. The problem is that Gorgias elaborated on his claim in post #15 when he or she says that Christians don’t always go by evidence to reject things. I thought his claim applied to all claims and not just some.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

In my view, all of what you’re saying is a claim. In the near future I’ll open another thread on your claim because I would like to see the reports of the investigations and the types of evidence that’s admitted. If the evidence is more testimony and not empirical, then that begins doubt in my mind.

Good point, I was going to further give information here but I started a new thread instead.

here’s the link The Vatican's methods of verifying Miracles

 

[MPat]

Not quite. In post 1, I did bring up someone who claimed that Christians reject claims that have no evidence for them. But I used that claim to discuss another topic, which was:

“In terms of evidence, why do Christians reject the claims of supernatural experiences from non-Christians?”. This is clearly posted in the OP. I figured if Christians reject things that lack evidence, then surely that would mean things that they accept have evidence otherwise it’s a double standard.

So, in other words, when convenient, you end up treating such claims as if they were mostly equivalent:

• X reject claim Y, because X lack evidence for Y.
• X reject claim Y, because X have evidence against Y.

(You cited a claim of first form, then you complained that you weren’t persuaded of the claim of second form.)

I’m afraid that it does not lead to useful communication and investigation…

To a degree, yes. The problem is that Gorgias elaborated on his claim in post #15 when he or she says that Christians don’t always go by evidence to reject things. I thought his claim applied to all claims and not just some.

You seriously thought so? In that case you really should be much more careful.

You might note that, in the part of my post that you ignored, I made it explicit that, in my view, it is probable that you did not state your position precisely. After all, people aren’t always precise. So, wouldn’t it be a good idea for you as well?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

A couple of thoughts:

When a person makes a claim about a physical event in the physical world, it is up to the person making the claim to present evidence, and not up to the person being asked to accept the claim to “have evidence for rejecting the claim.” So, when a person makes a claim of supernatural events in the world, those listening (be they Christian or non-Christian) must evaluate the evidence of the person making the claim and then accept or reject it on that basis. In a sense, then, (unless I’m misunderstanding you), you’ve got it backward: Christians don’t need to provide evidence that rejects claims, in the same way that no one needs to provide evidence that someone else’s claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Two responses:

• It’s not simply lack of evidence that may lead someone to reject something, having actual evidence against a claim can lead someone to reject a claim, as well. You sorta brought up my last point in your 3rd bullet point.
• By rejection, I’m referring to something false. If there is a lack of evidence, you could either accept it (it’s true), reject it (it’s false), or remain open (I don’t know if it’s true or false).

That would be a bad assumption, then. That’s like saying “if it’s not raining, therefore it’s sunny out.” It doesn’t follow logically.

What other logical alternatives are there to your claim? Gorgias’s claim: Christians reject claims that lack evidence. Does this not mean that you accept claims that have evidence? It would be a contradiction (double standard) if it meant otherwise, unless you scale down your claim to apply to SOME claims and not all.