Re: visions of what?!?

William A. Wetzel (
Fri, 07 May 1999 10:26:29 -0700

Dear Wayne:

Welcome to the club!!!! I'm an electronic technologist (a cousin to you)!
And as for empirical data to support supernatural phenomena? It is not so
since "repeatability" seperates science from psuedo science. And it maybe
never realized since our God is an infinitely holy God.

I do believe that God does exist, I also believe that a possibility for a
telephone call from E.T. maybe possible. But until God comes with all His
hosts or E.T. drops a dime... We have to go on faith on both counts.

What you can do however, is study and employ some apologetics though. The
field seems to be expanding rapidly in christian ministries and is now in
the curriculum of many colleges and bible schools.

Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY

Wayne Dawson wrote:
> Dear list,
> I recently managed to get myself mired in a debate with someone
> about "evidence" in relation to the existence of God. Having
> obtained a Ph.D in physics, I am well aware of the severe paucity
> of so-called "measurements" which can attest to the existence of
> God. Moreover, I am intellectially honest enough to say that such
> faith in God is based upon our own subjective interpretation of
> events in our lives.
> However, my recent blunder into such discussions has introduced
> yet another distraction from the secular naturalists. The argument
> goes as follows...
> Person A (let's say Richard Price) claims to have been abducted
> by aliens from outer space.
> Person B (let's say Mother Theresa) claims to have had a mystical
> experience in which she was touched by God's spirit.
> Both people (as far as I know) genuinely believe what happened to them
> were real events in their lives. Moreover, nether person A nor person
> B have used these events for personal profit, and have endured much
> suffering on account of their respective experiences.
> Since both claim to have "experience", the secular naturalist
> states that both such claims are invalid since both claim their
> "experience" is true.
> Now ultimately, I suppose on the matter of "evidence", Jesus already
> made it clear in the debate between Abraham and the rich man (Luke
> 16:31) "And he said onto [the rich man]. 'If they hear not Moses and
> the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the
> dead'". Hence, it is probably pointless for even the Almighty
> himself/itself (or whatever way chose we express it) to make argument
> with the insistant secular naturalist.
> Moreover, I suspect that denial of sense experience by the secular
> naturalist leads down a path in which *NO* sense experience can be
> considered valid (even the secular naturalist's most precious
> "reproducable-on-demand" experimental experience). Indeed, I suspect
> that taking the redutio ad absurdum, *all* sense experience could be
> classified as "anecdotal" (even the experiments we carry out ourselves
> to convince ourselves of the validity of observations carried out by
> other scientists) and therefore "scientific evidence" itself can be
> equally denied by such extreme reasoning.
> However, I lack the philosophical prowess to wage a suitable argument
> to counter this recent secular naturalist' attack.
> Does anyone on this list have some suggestions on suitable arguments
> to counter the secular naturalist' assertion that "visions of space
> aliens" and "visions of the kingdom of God" are identical and
> therefore false.
> deeply obliged

William A. Wetzel
icq-uin# 13983514