Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Meta vs Infinaite hope

Threaded View

  1. #12
    Senior Member Reputation Points: 2565 Metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Dallas, Texas


    2AR final speech in the debate

    Quote Originally Posted by infinitehope View Post
    Well. I do not, honestly, know where to begin. First and formost, the fourm rules prohibit me from linking to any page. I can only referance people by name, and only felt the need to give two names towards my augments - Andrew Newberg and Andy Thomson's speach.
    you can still give enough URL to give the idea of how to find it. Or you can give a source. Not all of my evidence is in links. I quoted Newberg agaisnt because you he's actually a believer and he argues for God so he says point blank his research is NOT an arguemnt against belief.

    I do not feel the need to appeal to any other athority on the subject. If mystical and/or spritual experances were tested and documated and repeatable, there would be ample evedance to suport that it is something more then just a state that the brain can acheve.
    Occam take note, this is a perfect example of begging the queistion. I have documented in several places there is a whole wing of psychology (physiology of religion) dedicated to exploring the findings of the 200 studies supporting the notion of religious experience as valid and positive. The M scale was developed by Ralph Hood (this is documented by some of the sources I gave) as a scientific means of sorting out what is a valid mystical expedience and what is not.

    the M scale was validated by a dozen study in half a dozen different culture and has since become the standard procedure for study of mystical experience. When you say "if this was true there would be proof" like saying "if there was anything to evolution they would have proof form the fossil record." there is a huge body of empirical scientific research in academic journals. I've alluded to it many times.

    It's not well known outside of psychology of religion because it's dependent upon understanding study methodology. Perhaps that will change with my book.

    My oppenent shifted the orginal question with his opening speach. Note, I asked for a debate with the question "Is God Real" but the debate I got was "that religious belief in God is rationally warranted." still, I press forward because it only seems fit to respond as well as I can.
    It's not like I didn't put that up to you before the started. I told I was waiting to discuss things with you and you never responded. Getting to the last speech is a bit late to bring this up. You had two constructive now it's a argument in rebuttals.

    your trading on a semantic difference. There is no real difference in saying "God is real" and "belief if rationally warranted." Saying X is real has major epistemological problems that would make proof in debate impossible. Warrant, by the time you put out the evidence to warrant a conclusion you've basically proved it for all practical purposes. No one with any sense would try to prove that God exists. If scinece doesn't prove things (see Popper) no reason why I should try to.

    My points are still:

    The experance of both spritual/mystical are not something that all people can have, again most people can and do experance reality every day

    you have no documentation to back that up. Griffiths and Pahanke prove clearly that with the right approach (mushrooms--soft light, classical music) anyone can have the experience. two different studies btw.

    The spritrual/mystical experance must be taught and is not easy to acheve, and not everyone that trys to can experance this.
    I presented and documented evidence disproving that over and over again. I said more than once. he ignores it as though I didn't say it at all. In half the cases the people were not expecting it, weren't seeking it, weren't even believers in God; and in the vast majority of cases they did nothing to "learn" how to have the experience.

    The result of said spirtual/mystical experance upon the person who experancing it is not relevent: Even if everyone who has these things
    this is a new argument in rebuttals. I'll answer it anyway: I've demonstrated time and time again it is. The effect demonstrate that the experience fits the criteria of epistemic judgement and that means we can and should trust it and understand it as real. Moreover, the effects provide the ability to navigate in life by the experience, that is it helps us make decisions and bear the burdens and get through life. That proves it works, and that's part of the criteria of understanding it as real.

    We understand as real the perceptions that work to navigate the world. perceptions that don't enable navigation we discord. The effects are illustrations that RE dos enable navigation, [SIZE=3]meaning that belief works. so we should regard it as real.[/SIZE]

    can get a possitive life change from them, that still does not meen that the thing itself exists outside of the mind.
    It's the best indication we have. its' the way we decide the issue in all experiences. "Is it hot in here to you?" "did you see that?" "am I dreaming or do you see that too?" We check our perceptions by the criteria I sketched out, he never died it. It's a bit late to start now.

    Even though people can have such experances, it proves nothing more then the experance itself, it does not show that God is real, or even related to said experance at all.
    I just explained why it does. rather it warrants the belief. It's a good reason to believe. Because it works that's how we decide what's real, whatever enables navigation in life is real. We don't decide "I've been run over 14 times trying to play on the freeway but I know it's a good place to play. I'll try it again."

    "I've tried to walk though walls 147 times now and I always bounce off. I know it's possible, I'll try again." we don't do that. when we bounce off the wall we decide not to try again.


    The mystical/spritaul experances fail on all of these points. They are not consistent - everyone has a diferent kind of experance, and no one can put to words what it was they experanced.

    I disproved that with multiple source. this is just an example of how he does bother to research. He only takes his opinion from atheist websites and doesn't bother to found out what info is out there. Studies by Lukoff and Lue and Hood's M scale prove that the experiences are the same the world over. the only differences are the names used and doctrines used to justify them. the actual experiences themselves are the same. M scale has been verifeid cross cultural in numerous studies.

    It is not shared by every and all humans, as meny people can not acheve it.
    repeating things I've already disproved.

    It is not regular as it must be LEARNED - you can not even experance it unless you learn how!
    he has offered no evidence that it must be learned. I've shown in half the cases it's not. IN fact more than half, in half it was not even known or understood or expected. In the vast majority of cases it wasn't learned.

    the documentation I linked to form my argument 7 on the God argument list, the study by Lukoff shows it is regular.

    navigational - not at all, it does not give anyone new information about anything.
    (1) new argument in rebuttals you have to disregard.
    (2) I've already documented in 2AC that the noetic qualities do constitute learning. It doesn't' have to new information like string particle condensates proving string theory or anything of that nature. its' new to the mystic because it's learned in the experience as fist hand knowledge.
    (3) he's ignoring what I mean by "navigation" and imposing his own meaning. there's no reaosn why it has to be new to enable navigation. the Rosario study and others show that enables navigation.

    If this is refering to that it helps some people have a better life, then okay, it might do that, I am not convinced about it, but I'm willing to alow that it might. Medatation has been show to reduce stress. We do not have to think that anything sprutal or mystical is going on during medatation for it to work, it MIGHT be, but I see no reasion to suspect that it is.
    misusing the term supernatural again. I've already linked to my page giving the proper understanding. It does not have to be otherworldly to be supernatural. the experience itself is the supernatural by definition. that's what the term meant. having the experience is the original meaning of the term.

    Mediation is not mystical experience. just doing mediation doesn't constitute anything like mystical experience. That's not an argument.

    This augument, I am afraid, must draw to a close here, I should have ended it the moment my oppenent changed the question that I wanted debated to this one.
    I am sorry that my op pent didn't understand when I suggested he topic: that belief in God is rationally warranted, that I meant "rationally warranted."

    My oppenent referances a few studys that may, or may not support the idea that experances that some call mystical and/or spirutal can get some people to lead better lifes or help them to
    a few like 200. I've only been talking about them for five years. be sure buy my book when it's out.

    I thank IH for being willing to debate. I hope he will go on read the studies I've pointed out.
    Last edited by Metacrock; 03-10-12 at 08:20 AM.
    Lord what fools these mortals be.
    Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

    President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts