Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Forms?

[Morny]

Where am I trying to "ground" the Golden Rule or the Commandments in objectivity, whatever than means? No wonder topics swell to 44 pages, rarely reaching common ground between opposing viewpoints.

I'm just saying that most of the Commandments reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, and gave an example. Surely, you generally agree. Yes?

Surely you agree that the atheist can dismiss the Golden Rule as he/she pleases while the theist is morally bound to it.

Non-theists reason, solely on their own, that the Golden Rule is worth following, which covers 7 of the 10 Commandments and a whole lot more. Theists work backward to the Commandments later, after early and repeated haunting warnings of "Or else!"

No surprise then, that in my lifelong experience with innumerable sinners and saints, that non-theists are more likely than theists to be the saints.

[Morny]

Wikipedia quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

• Naturalism can intuitively be separated into a metaphysical and a methodological component."[3] Metaphysical here refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]

By contrast:

• assuming naturalism in working methods, without necessarily considering naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailments, is called methodological naturalism

I read that to mean any methods used in science under "methodological naturalism" do not necessitate or exclude either "Philosophical Naturalism" or "Theism". Such methods therefore, however one might think they best fit with their philosophies, are in and of themselves neutral when performed.

For example, it is quite neutral to take a position about how something could have arisen "naturally", that is without an "unnatural cause".

By "natural" here I intend it to be in its purest and rawest meaning. That is, something left alone unhindered to occur according to any environmental processes without any outside intervention.

For example, my hair in its natural state would be very long, scruffy and untouched, but in an "unnatural" state may be scruffy, have lice, oily, or whatever the case might be.

CSI, in order to declare some crime has taken place, must first rule out "natural" causes. For example, a big boulder that lands on top a person out in the wilderness, was the rock pushed or was this just an unlucky set of natural circumstances?

MN, in its most neutral philosophical form, would simply look at natural environment, any and all natural processes, that may have caused the boulder to fall at that precise time.

I'm not trying to picky here, because I always try to find common ground/understanding first, but Wikipedia's exclusion (above) of "spirits, deities, and ghosts" means to imply that even a person pushing the boulder is "natural". Almost every scientist (theist or not), whom I know, would agree with that implication of MN, and resist almost all injections of the word "philosophy" into their work.

Similarly under MN, your hair, either lice-afflicted or not, would be "natural".

So CSI, assuming MN, can distinguish, with varying confidence levels, between multiple natural causes, viz., a rock slide, the known telltale characteristics of intelligent murderers, or anything else consistent with the facts and science, including the psychology of murderers.

And for example, the scientific umbrella of MN also covers investigative methods of paleontologists. Do chipped pointy rocks at a multi-million year old dig site support a tentative conclusion that intelligent Homo habilis made the tools? And sometimes the evidence is unclear; MN via the Scientific Method is very effective, but not perfect.

And by Morny law, I have to repeat often that MN is provisional, i.e., MN says nothing, one way or another, about the supernatural. Please excuse my rusty French translation, but Louis Pasteur, even though a deeply religious man, captures the idea far better than anyone else:

Quand j'entre dan mon labo, j'accroche le bon Dieu sur le porte-chapeau.

When I enter my lab, I hang God on the hat rack.

[Kurieuo]

Where am I trying to "ground" the Golden Rule or the Commandments in objectivity, whatever than means? No wonder topics swell to 44 pages, rarely reaching common ground between opposing viewpoints.

I'm just saying that most of the Commandments reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, and gave an example. Surely, you generally agree. Yes?

Surely you agree that the atheist can dismiss the Golden Rule as he/she pleases while the theist is morally bound to it.

Non-theists reason, solely on their own, that the Golden Rule is worth following, which covers 7 of the 10 Commandments and a whole lot more. Theists work backward to the Commandments later, after early and repeated haunting warnings of "Or else!"

No surprise then, that in my lifelong experience with innumerable sinners and saints, that non-theists are more likely than theists to be the saints.

Reason? Reason has nothing to do with the Golden Rule.

Here's a "golden rule" that I see as reasonable, and which most people tend to follow in their everydays lives. And it's one that makes logical sense:

Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you.

After it's your life. You won't be around after it. So live it your way. ("your" intended as third person, not you specifically)

Care to offer a logical alternative?

[bippy123]

Where am I trying to "ground" the Golden Rule or the Commandments in objectivity, whatever than means? No wonder topics swell to 44 pages, rarely reaching common ground between opposing viewpoints.

I'm just saying that most of the Commandments reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, and gave an example. Surely, you generally agree. Yes?

Surely you agree that the atheist can dismiss the Golden Rule as he/she pleases while the theist is morally bound to it.

Non-theists reason, solely on their own, that the Golden Rule is worth following, which covers 7 of the 10 Commandments and a whole lot more. Theists work backward to the Commandments later, after early and repeated haunting warnings of "Or else!"

No surprise then, that in my lifelong experience with innumerable sinners and saints, that non-theists are more likely than theists to be the saints.

Morny , im sorry but I totally disagree on account that not all atheists reason that Golden rule is worth following. An anti-theist can reason that on a wednesday that he feels like raping a little child and he can provide his own reasons and rationale for wanting to rape that child and he can feel that he is totally right, while another anti-theist can decide that on saturday that he feels like helping an old lady across the street, and there is no way in heck that you objectively tell me that either one of these 2 are objectively right.

There is no objective morality in that worldview and its all a matter of arbitrary opinion. You can also say that the majority of reasonable opinion rules but then what would happen if the majority feels that rape serves society in a positive way. do you still follow the herd?

Without a Transcendent objective moral law giver your left with arbitrary personal opinions on what is right and what is wrong and the golden rule might as well mean the same as the silver spoon.

[bippy123]

Where am I trying to "ground" the Golden Rule or the Commandments in objectivity, whatever than means? No wonder topics swell to 44 pages, rarely reaching common ground between opposing viewpoints.

I'm just saying that most of the Commandments reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, and gave an example. Surely, you generally agree. Yes?

Surely you agree that the atheist can dismiss the Golden Rule as he/she pleases while the theist is morally bound to it.

Non-theists reason, solely on their own, that the Golden Rule is worth following, which covers 7 of the 10 Commandments and a whole lot more. Theists work backward to the Commandments later, after early and repeated haunting warnings of "Or else!"

No surprise then, that in my lifelong experience with innumerable sinners and saints, that non-theists are more likely than theists to be the saints.

Reason? Reason has nothing to do with the Golden Rule.

Here's a "golden rule" that I see as reasonable, and which most people tend to follow in their everydays lives. And it's one that makes logical sense:

Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you.

After it's your life. You won't be around after it. So live it your way. ("your" intended as third person, not you specifically)

Care to offer a logical alternative?

This is called moral relativism, and this is why I always keep saying that the only honest atheists are nihilists, the rest live in delusional self denial of the truth of their worldview.

[Kurieuo]

The investigator is left to use other scientific and investigative tools along with his noggin to look for interventionist causes, and determine one way or another whether it was "natural" or "unnatural" (ergo intelligent intervention) that cause the rock to fall on top of a person. For example, could an alien after failing to abduct Poindexter have decided to kill him?

Again, this meaning of "natural" and even "naturalism" is its most basic form and entirely philosophical neutral. To understand how the world works, obviously one must conduct physical observation and tests (science) on the natural order.

Methodological naturalism isn't really concerned with excluding the possibility of intervention by intelligent actors, but rather excludes the possibility of intervention by supernatural actors^*. The actions of human beings are natural (they are bound by the laws of physics), and so fall into the scope of MN.

Yes, but hold that thought on "supernatural" (I want to relate it to what you say in your final words here)

Crime scene investigators would be unlikely to ever examine your falling rock scenario, unless there was pretty compelling evidence that the rockfall was something other than a horrible accident. Usually forensic experts would be called to a scene where it was highly likely that a crime had taken place, and their job would be to work out who should be considered a suspect for that crime, rather than whether human intervention was involved at all.

A better example for how the assumptions of MN might be applied to a crime scene is this: A secure delivery truck is found stopped in the middle of the street - the driver is dead at the wheel with two bullet holes in his chest, and the truck's payload of cash is missing. Even with no witnesses the scenario looks to be a crime, so forensics are called in. Some of their a priori assumptions rooted in MN would be: the bullets were fired from a gun; the gun was wielded by a person; the money was taken by people rather than spirited away or disappearing into thin air. Investigation at the crime scene would proceed from that point - bullet trajectories could be determined to discover where the gun was fired from, fingerprints and DNA samples could be taken from the truck, the driver's background and acquaintances could be looked into the determine the probability that the crime was murder disguised as robbery, etc. etc.

There is nothing "natural" though about a person shooting another.

Certainly, I think the use of MN would find signs that would lead one to logically conclude the crime was committed by a person. And our courts of law will often decide things... whether those signs uncovered via investigation including scientific investigation reveal the perpetrator/s were the cause beyond reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, I see it comes down to this. If you or anyone wishes to impose "philosphical naturalism" onto any scientific method or process, then you're largely doing philosophy and stagnating truth and real possibilities rather than letting the scientific facts speak for themselves to those who then draw conclusions from what is revealed.

I agree. I would go even further and say that stating that MN and the scientific method have proven philosophical naturalism to be true is almost a contradiction in terms because by definition MN can only act upon what is natural (see my footnote).

* "Natural" as regards methodological naturalism is defined somewhat circularly. Technically gods and ghosts could be considered natural rather than supernatural under MN if we had a consistent means to test for gods and ghosts.

I fully agree, not surprising since you are also agreeing with me...

So since "Naturalism" (philosophically understood) has a somewhat circular definition and I'd say even prejudicial, we should take MN to simply mean an examining of the natural processes -- this does not require Morny's "hanging God at the door". While some do not seem to be getting what I'm saying, your words seem to reveal are you noticing the logical differences here...?

Re: your footnote. This is really the crux of the problem as I see it. Those who make a true distinction in reality of what is natural/supernatural are drawing an arbitrary line. I recall seeing an documentary that due to what many consider puzzling "supernatural" out of body experiences with near death experiences, some scientists have actually setup a center dedicated to researching explanations at the quantum level -- to try and explain how someone can leave their body and yet be conscious to what is happening in life while their body lies lifeless.

But, because some philosophy makes arbitrary distinctions between what is "natural' and "supernatural' we're left with a view of the world that is wrong. Creating this dichotomy causes many issues, many limitations... and as you stated it is quite circular.

I'd rather just say "reality is what reality is" and identifying something as natural/supernatural is rather a subjective and pointless exercise. Certainly, many on both sides do not consider our universe to be a closed world when they push back to multiverse/God scenarios.

Re: considering God natural, perhaps in the same sense that we might think a human killing another is natural. However, I think this causes confusion as to what "natural" really is.

Rather than considering "supernatural" the opposite of "natural", I think it is less circular and more appropriate to say "intervention" is the opposite of "natural'.

[Jac3510]

Care to offer a logical alternative?

You should strengthen the challenge! He doesn't need to provide a mere alternative, as if this is a matter of preference between flavors. He needs to offer an alternative that is superior to the one you are suggesting, such that it is irrational to accept your proposal.

This is the old debate between the Epicurians and the Stoics. It's easy to propose a moral logic. It's quite another to show people why they ought to adopt your moral system. After all, moral systems, by their very nature, see those things that are contrary to their assessments as immoral and thus wrong. Again, then, by their nature, moral systems are exclusivist and demand assent from others. When we today say slavery was wrong, we are saying that those who came before us who practiced it were wrong in doing so, whatever their own "logical" arguments for it.

If the atheist can't show why his moral system must be adopted--if he cannot show why that the rejection of his system is irrational--then he is left with the moral relativism bippy mentioned. And such relativism is in fact not moral at all--it is the denial of morality. And that undermines his own moral claims, since he is no longer making a moral claim after all, but simply a claim as to why he prefers to behave this way over that, and why he would prefer others to behave this way rather than that. Obviously, though, mere preference is not and cannot be the basis of morality.

(I know you know this, I just thought the point could have been clarified a bit! Forgive my intrusion.)

[PerciFlage]

I'd rather just say "reality is what reality is" and identifying something as natural/supernatural is rather a subjective and pointless exercise. Certainly, many on both sides do not consider our universe to be a closed world when they push back to multiverse/God scenarios.

Again, I agree. Methodological naturalism, however, isn't saying "what is natural is the only reality". A better couching of the position might be "Reality is what reality is. Some reality can be examined empirically, and that is what we call natural". What is deemed to be natural is therefore open to change along with new advances in empiricism.

Rather than considering "supernatural" the opposite of "natural", I think it is less circular and more appropriate to say "intervention" is the opposite of "natural'.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think "natural" embodies the position of MN better than "intervention". Because humans, animals and plants can intervene in the world in an entirely natural way, to include the word "intervention" in a definition of MN would require some sort of caveat along the lines of "MN assumes that only events which experience no intervention from arbitrary actors making use of unknown matter and forces can be talked about in a consistent and objective way", which is really just a longwinded way of saying that natural events are the only ones which can be talked about in an objective way.

[PerciFlage]

Perci, if an event happens which cannot be consistently tested for then the event falls under supernaturalism correct?

Yes, as long as we could be certain that the event truly did happen. I guess you could view such events as a counterpoint to phenomena such a gravity, which we also don't know the mechanism for, are highly certain are real phenomena, and which can be consistently tested for.

Regarding out of body experiences, I think if you could satisfactorily demonstrate that they are a genuine phenomenon (i.e. people are able to experience things that their physical body simply could not) then "supernatural" would describe the phenomenon as well as any other word. There's actually an interesting fairly large scale study into OOBEs currently underway, and they're due to release some preliminary findings in the very near future - http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38

[bippy123]

Perci, if an event happens which cannot be consistently tested for then the event falls under supernaturalism correct?

Yes, as long as we could be certain that the event truly did happen. I guess you could view such events as a counterpoint to phenomena such a gravity, which we also don't know the mechanism for, are highly certain are real phenomena, and which can be consistently tested for.

Regarding out of body experiences, I think if you could satisfactorily demonstrate that they are a genuine phenomenon (i.e. people are able to experience things that their physical body simply could not) then "supernatural" would describe the phenomenon as well as any other word. There's actually an interesting fairly large scale study into OOBEs currently underway, and they're due to release some preliminary findings in the very near future - http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38

Perci, this is all fine and dandy but again your relying on scientific testing as the final word for whether it happened or not. This falls into the category of scientism.
Veridical nde's are very subjective in nature yet there is an objective side to them which has been verified many times by outside eyewitnesses. Now whether you can verify them in a lab setting or not doesnt take away or weaken the eyewitness accounts that verify what these patients saw such as the blind since birth being able to see or not or pam reynolds being able to see her operation from above her body while brain dead with no heart beat and her eyes taped shut. To any common sense person this can only point to the supernatural, the fact that as she was pulled deeper and deeper into death and she then enters into a vortex doesnt make that vortex imaginery. Any logical person would reasonably conclude that this is the continuation of the veridical nde into a put unveridical nde.

There are allready so many examples of these things happening to make an open minded person conclude that this is compelling evidence not only for out of body experiences but for the afterlife as well, Regardless of whether materialists can repeat it again and again in a lab like test mice.

Perci, your not a follower of the very narrow minded worldview of scientism are you? As this worldview is not science but a philosophy.

[Kurieuo]

Rather than considering "supernatural" the opposite of "natural", I think it is less circular and more appropriate to say "intervention" is the opposite of "natural'.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think "natural" embodies the position of MN better than "intervention".

Yes, well of course. But, what are you presupposing "natural" to be? You aren't slipping back into that circular definition here are you?

[bippy123]

Perci you said

Again, I agree. Methodological naturalism, however, isn't saying "what is natural is the only reality". A better couching of the position might be "Reality is what reality is. Some reality can be examined empirically, and that is what we call natural". What is deemed to be natural is therefore open to change along with new advances in empiricism.

Now lets see what the definition of methodological naturalism is in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism ... naturalism

Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. "Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

The problem I have with this is that it severely hampers science by only allowing it to explain natural events with natural explanation. Science is supposed to be the pursuit of knowledge . For instance we find that a natural event keeps happening and we cannot find a natural cause for it, under methodological naturalism scientists must give up and turn away and say there is no natural explanation yet, but one day there will be one.

and lets not forget that even if you could replicate that event in a lab, the very subjective part of science is the interpreting of that information and that is controlled by the scientists who are also human.
An example would be the process of remote viewing is ridiculed by most mainstream scientists, yet our own government has spent millions of dollars and has concluded that remote viewing is a scientific fact, yet our supposed subjective mainstream science groupies barely mention a word about it and you have to read about it in dean radin's blog. These are the same scientists that expect us to believe that evolution is a scientific fact.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/s ... ng-is.html

In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."

Higher standards of evidence???????????????????, and yet they will jump for joy when any research comes out that gives a little credence to their precious theory of evolution.

[PerciFlage]

K and Bippy - apologies for not quoting, but I'm posting from a phone.

K, regarding your quoted use of naturalism, I was pointing out that on every day usage the word natural is semantically equivalent to the convoluted caveats around the word intervention.

Bippy, regarding scientism, I have said repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere that I don't believe empiricism is the only means to derive truth, just that it is a good means to derive certain kinds of truth.

Regarding psy phenomena, I will have to read up on your link in the morning. I will say that in my reading in the past the conclusions of psy experiments have been found wanting - there are certainly significant and positive results to be found in a number of experiments, but in general the better controlled the study the more the positive effect tends to diminish, and I don't recall coming across any experiment with highly significant, highly positive and highly reproducible results which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the positive effect is down to something psy rather than something...else. I would also be tempted to bet that Radin has selectively quoted and misinterpreted Wiseman's position, but again I will have to read more when the sun is up.

[bippy123]

K and Bippy - apologies for not quoting, but I'm posting from a phone.

K, regarding your quoted use of naturalism, I was pointing out that on every day usage the word natural is semantically equivalent to the convoluted caveats around the word intervention.

Bippy, regarding scientism, I have said repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere that I don't believe empiricism is the only means to derive truth, just that it is a good means to derive certain kinds of truth.

Regarding psy phenomena, I will have to read up on your link in the morning. I will say that in my reading in the past the conclusions of psy experiments have been found wanting - there are certainly significant and positive results to be found in a number of experiments, but in general the better controlled the study the more the positive effect tends to diminish, and I don't recall coming across any experiment with highly significant, highly positive and highly reproducible results which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the positive effect is down to something psy rather than something...else. I would also be tempted to bet that Radin has selectively quoted and misinterpreted Wiseman's position, but again I will have to read more when the sun is up.

As far as wiseman he has allready stated that if looked at by any normal scientific area that the evidence for certain areas of psi is strong, but then he pulls out his face saver card that every pseudo-skeptic pseudo-intellectual brings out save their butts and that extraordinary events demand extra ordinary evidences.

I would advise you to spend more time at the subversive thinking blog . A great Blog run by a Japanese Gentleman who isnt a Christian but seems to be getting a little more friendly to Christianity as each year passes by.
http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/ ... -that.html

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."

Some comments:

1)Note Wiseman's concession "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven"

This point is crucial, because it refutes the common pseudosketical opinions about psi phenomena, as being a exclusive product of fraud, delusion, wishful thinking or faulty research.

But the way, and just curious, if remote viewing is non-existent, how do you explain that it has been proven by the common scientific standards of any other area of science?

2)As Wiseman cannot refute the evidence (actually, he accepts it as correct according to the normal standards of science!), then he refuges himself in a version of the skeptical mantra that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a clever way to move the goal posts to avoid accepting the evidence for psi. It's a way to create ad hoc, special standards of evidence for accepting the paranormal).

Thus, note that Wiseman is not disputing the validity of the scientific research on remote viewing, but rejecting or undermining its evidential or probatory value in favor of it, appealing to external considerations.

So as you can see Percy, This is how pseudo-skeptic dogmatic atheists weasle out of any evidence for the paranormal or the supernatural.

And again, this is why I view atheism as one of the biggest cults on earth.

And again Percy, While its that repeatability is good for certain areas of research, it doesnt necessarily hold that it is good for all areas of research in science.

For instance we see very strong evidence of God when we see Christ coming back for the second time. Everyone has seen him, witnessed his miracles yet again and have witnessed his love.
Now some scientist comes up to you and says,"well Perci, that was impressive of him to do those things and show up, but since we cannot duplicate God in a lab that means that His coming back down to us again could only be explained by a mass global delusion.
And im sure many atheists would follow him, right on down to the gates of hades.

If you experienced Christ in a supernaturalistic way just by yourself, but atheists would tell you that your experience cant be true because you couldnt repeat it again, would that make your experience any less true than it allready is?
NO
and in this case repeatability is a very poor way of determining the truth.

[PerciFlage]

As far as wiseman he has allready stated that if looked at by any normal scientific area that the evidence for certain areas of psi is strong, but then he pulls out his face saver card that every pseudo-skeptic pseudo-intellectual brings out save their butts and that extraordinary events demand extra ordinary evidences.

I would advise you to spend more time at the subversive thinking blog . A great Blog run by a Japanese Gentleman who isnt a Christian but seems to be getting a little more friendly to Christianity as each year passes by.
http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/ ... -that.html

The subversive thinking blog also has this post addressing Wiseman's clarification of his quotation in the earlier post. So it sounds like his view is much the same as mine - the evidence for psi is certainly tantalising, and a number of experiments show results better than chance. I think the evidence is a little thin at the moment to say that the better-than-chance results are definitely a result of true psi-like activity as opposed to more prosaic reasons (fraud is a bit of a facile explanation, but flaws in experimental rigour are certainly a possibility), but the experiments are only going to get larger in scale and better in quality in the coming years. It's certainly an area I am watching with interest.

And again Percy, While its that repeatability is good for certain areas of research, it doesnt necessarily hold that it is good for all areas of research in science.
...
If you experienced Christ in a supernaturalistic way just by yourself, but atheists would tell you that your experience cant be true because you couldnt repeat it again, would that make your experience any less true than it allready is?
NO
and in this case repeatability is a very poor way of determining the truth.

I think repeatability - the possibility for phenomena to be independently verified - is fundamental to science. That doesn't mean that an event which is by its very nature a one-time-only thing can't be verified through science, or that only events which can be independently verified can be considered to be true. I know you've only dropped into this thread recently, but I've said that multiple times that I don't believe the scientific method is a sound way for determining all possible kinds of truth, I even said as much in the very post you have quoted here ("I don't believe empiricism is the only means to derive truth, just that it is a good means to derive certain kinds of truth"). If I experienced Christ in a supernatural way for myself, then it very possibly would not be amenable to scientific investigation, but it would not in any way be less true.

Edit: Speaking of a second-coming scenario, I think it is likely that you as a Christian would be as cautious as a non-theist in accepting the supposed Christ figure as genuine. Surely you would demand a very high standard of evidence - either empirical or subjective - to make damn sure that it really was Jesus as opposed to a human charlatan or a demonic manifestation?