What Hambil said.
But to respond specifically to your points …
Nor did I mean to imply that. Your debating style has been honorable, sir, and no duel is necessary. Now, who’s for tea?
Yikes. Let’s just say that analogies are not your friend, and politely avert our eyes from this one. 
Absolutely. I believe that rational thinking is valid for all questions that may be framed. It can’t answer all of them, but it’s got a better shot than any other method, and the track record to prove it.
Hambil is assuming the conclusion, I think. He says:
“If no reproducible, measurable evidence exists for something, then it doesn’t meet the basic criteria for rational acceptance. Thus, no angels.”
But it’s in the nature of the transcendent that it exists above or beyond the limits of material experience; that’s what transcendent means. Plainly, something which exists beyond the limits of materiality may not lead to any evidence which material beings can reproduce or measure. If the production of such evidence is the “basic criterion for rational acceptance”, Hambil is effectively denying the possibility that the transcendent exists. In which case transcendent angels certainly do not exist. But the reasoning is circular.
Milk, thanks, no sugar. Slice of shortbread?
Fine, ignore the analogy. It was pretty bad, I agree, and your reticence does you credit. But deal with the point. I suggest that the absence of material effects of a postulated transcendant phenomenon does not enable us to draw any useful conclusion about the likelihood of its existence, because it’s in the nature of transcendant phenomena that they need not have material effects.
You assert otherwise, but I don’t understand why.
I could understand an argument which went like this. We are exclusively material beings. We are concerned only with materiality. If a transcendant phenomenon exists which has no material consequences, it is of no consequence to us, and we are unconcerned with it.
But this is an argument that we should be indifferent to the existence of the postulated transcendent phenomenon. Or, with a little development, it could be an argument that we cannot know whether the postulated transcendant phenomenon exists. Or, at best, that the phenomenon need not exist. I don’t see how it becomes an argument that the phenomenon doesn’t exist, or is less likely to exist.
Hmmm. I have overreached myself.
I concede that rational thinking has a universal validity.
I dispute that Occam’s razor, when applied to the absence of observed material effects, allows us rationally to conclude that the postulated transcendant phenomenon does not exist, or is less likely to exist.
The implicit premise is that a transcendant cause must have, or is likely to have, material effects. But this has not been argued or established, and I don’t think we can just assume it.
I’m really not sure what you are arguing. If the argument is that transcendence is completely unmeasurable by us, even by controlled studies that show people who meditate, believe in angels, etc… are more successful or happier, then transcendence is meaningless, even if it does exist. And, if it is unprovable, than by definition it has no more validity than anything else that is unprovable - which is basically everything ever imagined that is outside of the scientific process, including magic, the great pumpkin, dragons and hot chicks who like nerdy guys.
No, that’s not my argument. I have been attacking SolGrundy’s argument that the absence of any measurable effect of a transcendent phenomenon allows us to conclude that it is unlikely to exist. I haven’t argued either that the effects of transcendence are measurable or that they are not; just that we cannot rationally draw the conclusion that SolGrundy draws from the fact that we haven’t measured them, because we haven’t established that transcendent phenomena necessarily have measurable effects.
That’s an unrelated point. The issue all along has been whether angels exist, not what meaning (if any) they have. (I suppose one could argue that things only exist if they have meaning, but you’re clearly not arging that.)
Hold on a moment. You’re moving a bit to easily from existence to validity. Angels, or any other phenomenon, are not “valid” or “invalid”. They exist or they do not exist. The statement that they exist, or that they do not exist, may be valid or invalid.
You obviously define “valid” as meaning “can be proved”, so that a statement which cannot be proved (or disproved) is invalid. (Please correct me if I misrepresent your position). Fine. But that only tells us about the validity of the statement, not about the existence of the phenomemon to which the statement refers.
Actually, I said ‘more valid’. Given the definition of valid, I stand by that statement. Something that can be proven is more valid than something that cannot.
That’s fine; I accept that. But it still seems to me that it is statements, arguments, conclusions and so forth which are valid or invalid. And if the statment “angels exist” cannot be proven, while the statement “carbon exists” can, then I accept the latter statement is more valid.
But, I repeat, whether the statement it valid or not tells me nothing about whether angels exist. Whether a phenomenon exists or not is an objective reality; it doesn’t depend on our capacity to make provable statements about it.
'cause they don’t exist?
:eek: 
I wish I had the perfect response, but I don’t. I can only speak from my experience(s) over the past 3 years. As I have found, just because something happens to you does not mean you have all the answers, lol.
I have to leave go in a minute, so i will complete my response later this morning, but I can tell you they are not arbitrary, at least not in the way you present. I have on many occasions been given messages for people I don’t know. It is not the most comfortable thing in the world to approach a complete stranger with this. Sometimes they listen and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they cry and ask me how I knew, and after I tell them, they cry even more. Sometimes they get angry and shout at me. Other times they just look at me and walk away.
trandallt,
I don’t think that skepticism has very much to do with it. The best analogy that I can think of is this: You are walking towards the subway entrance and notice a man trying to attract peoples attention. Some people pretend not to hear this man saying “excuse me” and hurry by. Others are preoccupied and truly do not hear him. Perhaps a few others hear him and decide not to stop because they don’t have a minute. A couple of these people would have stopped if it had been a different day or time. Then one person stops and says “yes, what do you want?”. Presumably everyone who passed by had the physical ability to hear, yet not everyone made the choice to listen, wether it was by choice or circumstance. Only one person made the choice to listen and respond.
Perhaps Angels are arbitrary, but that only works if you believe they have advance knowledge. Perhaps they do not. I do not have any insight as to why they would warn me of certain dangers, yet not say a bloody thing to help me avoid tearing a calf muscle last week. I certainly don’t think it has anything at all to do with being mean-spirited. I don’t know the meaning or significance behind every event, and I doubt I ever will. I think a lot of people tend to discount the free will involved in life events.
I don’t feel I possess a sense that others do not. I truly believe that most, if not all people, have the ability to hear them. Their voices are audible.
Get it on tape, in a controlled environment.
OK lets forget about the skeptics and concentrate on the thousands ands thousands of people who believe in angels and would love to hear from them. Those people both have the ability and are listening, so I do not see where the answer “some people just don’t listen” makes any sense. Clearly the angels are choosing to speak to some and not to others, for whatever reason. Are these folks not deserving of warning and comfort?
And the angels, by your account, certainly had advance knowledge of your fiances’ death, and the certain dangers you refer to. If they in fact know what is going to happen in the future that pretty much takes free will out of the equation.
I have no idea if they knew the date and time of his death in advance.
The initial words I heard in August of 2001 were “Be Not Afraid”. I still don’t know if they meant don’t be afraid of them, don’t be afraid on 9/11 because we have you covered, or don’t be afraid when your Fiance has a heart attack.
There is a lot about Angels, the Universe, God, etc that I have absolutely no answer for or explanation of. All I can do is speak from my personal experience and from what I have been told. Other than that, I simply do not know.
another interruption, brb.
I personally believe they are acting on God’s authority.