| Kierkegaard (sp?) had some interesting things to say about the three examples listed in the op. He'd say the only thing we can conclude is that our senses are registering something supernatural. That's all. We cannot make any more statements because there's no way to test the supernatural.
*big lights and booming voice* "I'm god."
"Really? Prove it. How do I know you're THE god? You could be Loki, the norse god of trickery. I see lots of lights and hear a booming voice so I could be hallucinating. All I can say for sure is that you're a loud voice claiming to be god. That's ALL."
From here, if the voice forces you to KNOW he's god, then you've lost your free will... which is another can of worms.
Short of that, you'd have no way of knowing because there's no direct evidence.
Furthermore, whenever a supernatural event allegedly happens there's no indirect evidence. The burning bush didn't leave behind tell tale scorch marks. There's no silt markings to suggest the Red Sea parted. No Egyptian record ever talks about the plagues Pharoh allegedly suffered.
It is only rational to believe in things which are supported. The supernatural CANNOT be directly supported and no credible indirect support has ever been presented. Thus, it is not rational to believe in the supernatural. As Kierkegaard points out, it's only possible to rationally believe that we may have experienced something supernatural. |