What are the odds of someone experiencing coincidences when they thought they could know God through philosophy apart from Jesus, to then discover that no one in the history of philosophy has taken the deductive arguments to mean that God can’t be proven apart from yourself? What are the odds?
It’s like what Glenn Morton says about having an astronomical chance of winning a lottery, and you were the only one who bought the ticket.
I should have added that detail to Maggie’s five consecutive wins.
She was the only one who bought tickets.
It’s all a fluke and a lot of cats… oy vey
I remember the look of dismay when I told my agnostic philosophy of religion professor, whose other area of speciality was religious experience, my story.
This claim can easily be tested by submitting your arguments to outsiders – which you have done here. It is an objective fact that outsiders frequently do not discern the objective meaning you claim is present in your accounts.
Given the notorious unreliability of human memory, I really can’t judge how good the correspondence was. Is it subjective when people – including those seeking God – pray sincerely and specifically and get exactly what they didn’t ask for?
I could be mistaken, but I don’t think Dale is saying the meaning is undeniable, but the facts in their individual cases are.
Now it feels like you are blindly throwing darts at the wall.
Only God can judge the sincerity of someone’s heart, and yes, sometimes God doesn’t fulfill sincere prayers, and sometimes he does.
Thinking about it a little further… the one prayer that a person can count on, if asked for with sincerity, is the gift of the Holy Spirit. While that comes in different shapes and sizes, it is guaranteed to bear fruit and often remodels the entire house.
It is also an objective fact that objective meaning can be simply denied. That denialism abounds may not be quite so obvious or welcomed by some (definitely not by those who are in denial!), but the proliferation of conspiracism and political tribalism certainly supports the contention (and there are of course other kinds of denialism).
What if the meaning is denied by the denial of meaning?
Yes, someone who presupposes that a certain kind of meaning cannot exist will not allow that meaning, even if it is true and evident to others. (That rather defines denialism, doesn’t it.) And some presuppositions are disingenuous and subjective.
That may be the only way a person can look at the objective facts in these individual cases and not intuit the providence of God.
I think your ‘intuit’ should be replaced by ‘deduce’ since we are talking about the presuppositions, the axioms, that deduction is based on. Call it cognitive bias, if you will – some biases are correct.
Maybe we can settle on believe.
What I like about intuition, is the sense in which it is an instinctive, gutteral, or soulish understanding. Deduction seems too exclusively mental.
But intuition can also lead us badly astray – it’s subjective and eminently fallible, like feelings. Children can be rational, wonderfully so, without breaking a sweat. 
The ID crowd uses intuition extensively. (We have to use our minds to test our hearts.)
Maybe we can call intuition trustworthy if (and only if) it is correct cognitive bias based on correct belief?
Polanyi’s view of tacit understanding came to mind in looking at this. Searching Polanyi on the forum brings up a little history. Not so sure how well his name is received around here.
I liked how he valued the inspired judgement that can be found in working through a problem. Before the math and deductive reasoning can support it, the insight can still function as a working solution. I’m sure I’m butchering his terminology.
Mars Hill Audio had a wonderful audio production on Polanyi. The chapter on how master musical instrument craftsmen have a skill that cannot be written with a set of instructions, and can only be passed down through apprenticeship was memorable.
I do not have any difficulty with instinct, especially if it is trained instinct, but like I said, the ID crowd is way off in their dependence on intuition and it has lead to flat-out dishonesty, not totally unlike YECism.
I’m taking mental notes about the dishonesty with ID proponents. It’s a subject I never concerned myself with. I was vaguely aware of the books and some names, but I don’t think I even read an article on the subject. If someone asked, I said I leaned OEC, and that with respect to ID there was a high probability God existed.
How would you contrast the high probability God exists with respect to the appearance of intelligent design, and believing God with respect to lottery-like outcomes?
(I think that’s a new topic. ; - )
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.