Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Meta vs Infinaite hope

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Meta vs Infinaite hope

    Resolved: that religious belief in God is rationally warranted.



    [SIZE=3]Decison Maknig Paraidgm."[/SIZE]

    Co-determinate: The co-determinate is like the Derridian trace, or like a fingerprint. It's the accompanying sign that is always found with the thing itself. In other words, like trailing the invisible man in the snow. You can't see the invisible man, but you can see his footprints, and wherever he is in the snow his prints will always follow.

    We cannot produce direct observation of God, but we can find the "trace" or the co-determinate, the effects of God in the wrold.

    The only question at that ponit is "How do we know this is the effect, or the accompanying sign of the divine? But that should be answer in the argument below. Here let us set out some general perimeters:

    (1) The trace produced content with specifically religious affects

    (2)The affects led one to a renewed sense of divine reality, are transformative of life goals and self actualization

    (3) Cannot be accounted for by alternate causality or other means.

    Argument (1)There are real affects from Mystical experience.

    (2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena.

    (3)Since the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explanations we should assume that they are genuine.

    (4)Since mystical experience is usually experience of something, the Holy, the sacred some sort of greater transcendent reality we should assume that the object is real since the affects or real, or that the affects are the result of some real higher reality.

    (5)The true measure of the reality of the co-dterminate is the transfomrative power of the affects.

    [SIZE=3]Argument: from epistemic judgmenet[/SIZE]


    (1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.

    (2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.

    (3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key.

    (4) religious experience can also be regular and consistent, perhaps not to the same degree, but in the same way.

    (5) Inersubjective

    RE of this type has a commonality shared by believers all over the world, in different times and different places, just as the external world seems to be perceived the same by everyone.

    (6) Navigational

    just physical perception enables navigation in the world so religious experience enables emotional navigation in life.

    (7) Therefore RE can be trusted as indicative of verisimilitude since it fits the same, or near the same criteria as does epistemic judgement.

    Thus religious belief in God is rationally warranted.


    analysis:

    A. How do we Know the external world exists?

    Philosophers have often expressed skepticism about the external world, the existence of other minds, and even one's own existence. Rene Descartes went so far as to build an elaborate system of rationalism to demonstrate the existence of the external world, beginning with his famous cogito, "I think, therefore, I am." Of course, he didn't really doubt his own existence. The point was to show the method of rationalism at work. Nevertheless, this basic point, that of epistemology (how we know what we know) has always plagued philosophy. It seems no one has ever really given an adequate account. But the important point here is not so much what philosophers have said but what most people do. The way we approach life on a daily basis the assumptions we make about the external world. Skeptics are fond of saying that it is irrational to believe things without proof. I would argue that they, an all of us, believe the most crucial and most basic things without any proof whosoever, and we live based upon those assumptions which are gleaned with no proof of their veracity at all!

    B. Consider Thomas Reid's Common Sense Philosophy of Foundatinalism and Fallibalism.

    The point of departure here is Reid's discussion of Hume and the problem of justification of the external world. This is discussed in lecture notes of a contemporary philosopher, G.J. Mattey, in his lecture notes.

    1) Skepticism about the External World

    Thomas Reid
    Theory of Knowledge lecture notes.
    G.J. Mattey
    Philosophy, UC Davis

    "Consider the question whether we are justified in believing that a physical world exists. As David Hume pointed out, the skepticism generated by philosophical arguments is contrary to our natural inclination to believe that there are physical objects." "[T]he skeptic . . . must assent to the principle concerning the existence of body, tho' he cannot pretend by any arguments of philosophy to maintain its veracity. Nature has not left this to his choice, and has doubtless esteem'd it an affair of too great importance to be trusted to our uncertain reasonings and speculations. We may well ask, What causes induce us to believe in the existence of body?, but 'tis in vain to ask, Whether there be body or not? That is a point, which we must take for granted in all our reasoning." (A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part IV, Section II)

    "Nonetheless, after considering the causes of our belief in the existence of body and finding them inadequate for the justification of that belief, Hume admitted to be drawn away form his orignal assumption that bodies exist. 'To be ingenuous, I feel myself at present . . . more inclin'd to repose no faith at all in my senses, or rather imagination, than to place in it such an implicit confidence,' because ''tis impossible upon any system to defend either our understanding or senses." His solution to these doubts was "carelessness and in-attention,' which divert the mind from skeptical arguments."


    2) Reid's Defense of Commonsense Beliefs.

    Mattey again:

    "Thomas Reid, who was a later contemporary of Hume's, claimed that our beliefs in the external world are justified.'I shall take it for granted that the evidence of sense, when the proper circumstances concur, is good evidence, and a just ground of belief' (Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay IV, Chapter XX). This evidence is different from that of reasoning from premises to a conclusion, however."

    "That the evidence of sense is of a different kind, needs little proof. No man seeks a reason for believing what he sees or feels; and, if he did, it would be difficult to find one. But, though he can give no reason for believing his senses, his belief remains as firm as if it were grounded on demonstration. Many eminent philosophers, thinking it unreasonable to believe when the could not shew a reason, have laboured to furnish us with reasons for believing our senses; but their reasons are very insufficient, and will not bear examination. Other philosophers have shewn very clearly the fallacy of these reasons, and have, as they imagine, discovered invincible reasons agains this belief; but they have never been able either to shake it themselves or to convince others. The statesman continues to plod, the soldier to fight, and the merchant to export and ijmport, without being in the least moved by the demonstations that have been offered of the non-existence of those things about which they are so seriously employed. And a man may as soon by reasoning, pull the moon out of her orbit, as destroy the belief of the objects of sense." (Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay IV, Chapter XX)

    "Here Reid shows himself to have foundationalist tendencies, in the sense that our beliefs about physical objects are not justified by appeal to other beliefs. On the other hand, all he has established at this point is what Hume had already observed, that beliefs about physical objects are very hard to shake off. Hume himself admitted only to lose his faith in the senses when he was deeply immersed in skeptical reflections. But why should Reid think these deeply-held beliefs are based on "good evidence" or "a just ground?" One particularly telling observation is that a philosopher's "knowledge of what really exists, or did exist, comes by another channel [than reason], which is open to those who cannot reason. He is led to it in the dark, and knows not how he came by it" (Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay IV, Chapter XX). Philosophers "cannot account for" this knowledge and must humbly accept it s a gift of heaven."

    "If there is no philosophical account of justification of beliefs about the physical world, how could Reid claim that they are justified at all? The answer is the way in which they support common sense."

    "Such original and natural judgments [based on sense-experience] are, therefore, a part of that furniture which Nature hath given to the human understanding. They are the inspiration of the Almighty, no less than our notions or simple apprehensions. They serve to direct us in the common affairs of life, where our reasoning faculty would leave us in the dark. They are part of our constitution; and all the discoveries of our reason are grounded upon them. They make up what is called the common sense of mankind; and, what is manifestly contrary to any of those first principles, is what we call absurd. (An Inquiry into the Human Mind, Chapter VII, Section 4)"

    "One might say that judgments from sense-experience they are justified insofar as they justify other beliefs we have, or perhaps because they are the output of a perceptual system designed by God to convey the truth. (Of course, if the latter is what gives these beliefs their justification, the claim that we are designed in this way needs to be justified as well.)"



    C. In other words, We accept the existence of the external world as a matter of course merely because we perceive it.

    1) Acceptance of Perceptions about the world.


    But it is not merely because we percieve it that we accept it. It is because we perceive it in a particular sort of way. Because we perceive it in a regular and consistent way. This has been stated above by Reid. The common man goes on with his lot never giving a second thought to the fact that he can no more prove the veracity of the things around him than he can the existence of God or anything else in philosophy. Yet we accept it, as does the skeptic demanding his data, while we live out our lives making these assumptions all the time.

    2) Consistency and Regularity.

    If every time we woke up in the morning it was in a different house, with a different family, but one which make the assumption that we did nevertheless belong there and always had, and if the route to work changed every morning, if we never went to the same job twice, if our names and our looks were always different each day, we might think less of direct observation. But because these things are always the same from moment to moment and they never differ, we learn to trust them and we trust them implicitly as a matter of course. We do not try to prove to our selves each day when we get up "I am the same person today that I was yesterday," precisely because we learn very early that we always are the same person. We observe early on that we cannot penetrate physical objects without leaving holes and so we do not try to walk though walls; we know that doesn't work because it never works.

    Hume observed that when we see two billiard balls we do not really see the cause of one making the other one move. What we really observe is one stopping and the other one starting. But, in practical terms, we do not observe the causality of a car running over the pedestrian as causing the pedestrian to fly across the road, but we know from experience that these two factors usually go hand in hand and so we don't play in the street.

    a) Empirical proof?

    In making this argument on boards many skeptics have argued "I see that the world is real with my own eyes." That's the point, why trust your eyes? You cannot prove they are seeing things properly. Everything could be an illusion everything we observe could be wrong. We cannot prove the existence of the external world, we assume it because it is always there. Some try to claim this direct observation as empirical proof. But they are confusing the notion of scientific empiricism with epistemological empiricism. Before we make the assumption that scientific data is valid we first make the epistemological assumption that perception is valid. Otherwise there would be no point in assuming the data. So epistemological empiricism is prior to scientific methods. In fact we have to simply make this assumption a priori with no proof and no way around the problem in order to able to make the assumptions necessary to accept scientific data. WE do usually make these assumptions, but they are assumptions none the less.

    b) Science cannot prove reality.
    Still others try to content that empirical scientific evidence proves the reality of the external world. But of course if the world were an illusion than any scientific evidence we gather would be part of the illusion as well. So there is no other way to demonstrate the truth of the external world, the existence of other minds, or the reality of our own existence except through the consistency and regularity of our sense data.
    Last edited by Metacrock; 03-03-12, 11:32 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."

  • #2
    Two questions are present in this topic:

    Is God real?
    And:
    Is religious belief in God rationally warranted?

    For these questions, we must add a third:

    How do we (as a race of humans) best deside what is real and true?

    The answer to this above question seems most essental to our ablity
    to answer the two questions outlined above, and futher, any question
    at all.

    Reality, as Metacrock has sugested is a metaphical and "basic belife"
    I see no reasion to question reality myself, as it seems quite real,
    of course, I could be wrong, but I find it hard pressed that I am.

    Several justifcations (if any are required) could be given for afferming reality is
    real outside of myself, first; my immagentaion is limited, I can not
    understand how a moter in a car works, yet it does, in fact, I could not
    even think of a moter or a car at all on my own without any other imput.
    Secondly, if this is not realy reality, what is? Since this is an unknown
    and impossible to answer question, we must assme reality is real.


    So, I will proceed from now on as if reality is real, with one moment of
    side note in responce to my oppenent:


    In making this argument on boards many skeptics have argued "I see that the world is real with my own eyes." That's the point, why trust your eyes? You cannot prove they are seeing things properly. Everything could be an illusion everything we observe could be wrong.
    The augment is thus:

    1: we can not always be sure of our own sences.
    2: we can only precive reality is real via our sences.
    3: this, we can not be sure it is real.

    Well, if true then even MORE reasion to be a skeptic, not less!

    Contuning now...

    Thanks to modern science, we can study the brain and see it working, lights
    on the montars flash and reveal where thought is taking place, the idea that
    minds exist outside of my own, now seems to be confermed with the scientific
    method.

    Also of note, we have studed the "mystical" experances of humans, and whatever
    it may or may not effect them in terms of health, or how they act in socity
    is not proof that those experances are real outside of the mind itself,
    after all, we dream odd and wonderfull and frighting dreams, that could,
    and have in the past, influcane us - does this then meen we must conseder
    dreams to be justifaction for thinking the dream is "real" - it is real, in the
    mind only, not in the world around us. All we can know is that people can
    produce what they refer to as "mystical" experances, but when asked to
    provide a framework or referance to them, no one can agree to terms or
    defentions about it, what is worse, it is not unique to any relgion at all,
    if there was a true God that was singular - why would it alow spirtual or
    mystical experances to take place other then those that (G) wanted and/or desired
    to take place? One could, I supose, say that God does not want to interfer
    with free will, and alows people to experance false mystical experances.
    In that case, the question would become, how do we know what one is "real"
    and what one is "false"?

    We can not know that there is a "devine" reality, we can be TOLD this is true,
    we can BELIVE it is true, we can THINK it is true, but we have zero tests for it,
    we have zero messurments of it, and the only "evedance" for it is that people
    can experance something they call mystical or spirtual.
    This "evedance" is in quotes because it is not evedance at all, it is all in the mind,
    and that is all it is. What I am after is to see that this is real outside the mind,
    and there seems no way to show conclusivly that this is true.

    The only fall back seems to be to retort that therefor, we can not be sure of
    anything at all, because we can not be sure of this one thing: is God real?
    No one, not one person, will auguge about the moon's existance. No one,
    not one person, will auguge about the existance of tangable and testable objects,
    at least, other then the philopicer with a bit too much time on there hands.
    I do not for a moment object to thinking about such things, I quite injoy
    doing so myself. But, reality, and the truth, is all in the answer we
    as a person, and we, as a race, proclaim the answer to the third question:

    How do we best determin what is real?

    The answer to that question, for those who belive in God/Gods/gods/god seems
    to be: "because I can feel it" I can feel love, yet I now KNOW it is nothing
    more then a chemcial reaction. I can feel pain, but I know too how that works,
    and why it is there, yet pain is only in my mind, others can also feel pain,
    and I can know this by testing and varafaction. I can know a great deal
    of things by experments and tests, yet on this "sprirt" question, it remains
    for some reasion that excapes me, untestable by every single meens we have tryed.
    Why? If there is such a relm, it would seem we would have access to it.

    Perhaps, I sugest, the relm exists only in the mind, and no where else.
    Thus, my answer to question three is: the best way to know if something is
    real is by emperical testing, evedance, or access to it. And, so, my answer
    to the question is God real - is "only in the mind" as far as if the religous
    belife is justifyed - it is not, unforantly, those who belive do so not because
    of reality, but because of an emotonal and evolutanary need to explain the universe
    we are in, the basic trates that keep us alive and help us to surive make us
    assume there is a mind behind actions. If a rock hits my head, I turn around and
    look for who threw it - I do so because assuming it is a mind behind the action
    assures my survial more then not assuming so. If I found no one, and could find
    no other explation, I might assume it is a mind I can not see - a "rock throwing god"
    if you will. And, I would sugest, this is how the idea of gods came to be, a simple
    explaition of things we can not understand, and yet, desperatly want to
    control.

    Science has provided us with more tools to reign in this envorment that we
    find ourselfs in, not full tools to be sure, but more then we had before.
    It seems that the God of the Christan Bible saw fit to give women "more pain"
    in Genisis as a punnishment for sin, thanks to sceince it seems we have outsmarted
    God, as women can have totaly pain free (and thanks to more reserch) totaly
    pill free AND pain free births now. We have also outsmarted much of the things that
    kill us, although we have not quite found imortality.

    God, if it is real outside the mind, seems to only alow some people to experance
    anything about it, and then, to add confusion to the mix, alows people to disagre on
    said experance, and to debate about if that experance is really from said God, or
    rather from some evil God (Devil/Satan/etc) or perhaps the person is a lier, in error,
    or perhaps the simplest explation; perhaps this mystical and spritual experances
    are not from God or of God at all, but a product of our brain. BUT, if it is God,
    then this God is not a caring God, it is a God of confusion and misdirection,
    it is a God of hide and go seek. It is not a God worthy of respect, reverance, worship.

    If that is what God is, and only if God is real, then all religon's belifes are false
    since none of them currently line up with this objective statment about God.
    Of course, if there is a religon that does, I am unaware of it, but I'd like to know
    about them, because they would be closer to the truth of the matter, and maybe there
    God can actualy be verifyed... but I'm not holding my breath.
    Originally posted by ferengi
    Do yu realize you just contradicted yourself? If triangles ONLY exist in the mind - how can they be found? You are incorrect. They are called The Great Pyramids - they are triangles-they are outside the mind.
    Without God morality will be George Bush.

    Comment


    • #3
      2AC (part 1)

      His next speech will be his 2NC. that's his last constructive. this is my last constructive. the rebuttals.

      Two questions are present in this topic:

      Is God real?
      And:
      Is religious belief in God rationally warranted?

      For these questions, we must add a third:

      How do we (as a race of humans) best deside what is real and true?
      The question about God’s reality is answered by the question about warrant. It’s not that God is proved to exist but that our perception that he does is justified as an assumption by the warrant. As the third, we can’t answer it. That’s the whole point of talking about epistemic judgment. At the point where an assumption is the empiricist dilemma we make judgment. The criteria, upon which we make the judgment, to the extent that it works when we follow it, will provide the warrant.

      That’s why the second part of the argument talks about criteria for epistemic judgment. That’s who we decided that we know our perceptions are real, because they meet those criteria.

      The answer to this above question seems most essental to our ablity
      to answer the two questions outlined above, and futher, any question
      at all.
      I think he has to challenge the criteria or he must accept my premise.


      Reality, as Metacrock has sugested is a metaphical and "basic belife"
      I see no reasion to question reality myself, as it seems quite real,
      of course, I could be wrong, but I find it hard pressed that I am.
      Seeing a reason to question it is not the issue. In saying that he sees no reaosn to he tacitly accept my arterial. The reason he sees no reason to question reality is because we take for granted those assumptions enable navigation in the world. we navigate by the criteria of judgement. We do this habitually it's nothing we think about. We say "are you hot?" "do you see that?" we are saying "am I sharing this with you as an inter subjective perception? That's he third aspect of the criteria.

      The first two regular and consistent, I don't think anyone can question. The navigational is implied in his statement that we know this we don't have to question. How do we know it? because it works. If every time you try walking through a wall you bounce off you soon stop trying to walk through walls.


      Several justifcations (if any are required) could be given for afferming reality is
      real outside of myself, first; my immagentaion is limited, I can not
      understand how a moter in a car works, yet it does, in fact, I could not
      even think of a moter or a car at all on my own without any other imput.
      Secondly, if this is not realy reality, what is? Since this is an unknown
      and impossible to answer question, we must assme reality is real.
      I suggest that's not a habitual use. we don't say "I don't have the imagination to imagine this light in the sky, so it must be real." It's more likely we would ask "am I dreaming or is that light really there?" We would deterine the reality of it because dreams aren't like this. that's the regular and consistent aspects. Dreams aer never this lucid and real-seeming, reality is, so this must be real. Regular and consistent.


      So, I will proceed from now on as if reality is real, with one moment of
      side note in responce to my oppenent:
      fine as long as you realize I never said reality is not real. I said this is how we know reality is real.


      In making this argument on boards many skeptics have argued "I see that the world is real with my own eyes." That's the point, why trust your eyes? You cannot prove they are seeing things properly. Everything could be an illusion everything we observe could be wrong.
      The augment is thus:

      1: we can not always be sure of our own sences.
      2: we can only precive reality is real via our sences.
      3: this, we can not be sure it is real.

      Well, if true then even MORE reasion to be a skeptic, not less!
      I don't see why. It justifies the act of making an epistemic judgment. Nothing beats the navigational aspect. If it works it works. that is really the way we judge it. It's not use arguing "this is not the best way" becuase it's the way we do it. If it works we keep it.

      Contuning now...

      Thanks to modern science, we can study the brain and see it working, lights
      on the montars flash and reveal where thought is taking place, the idea that
      minds exist outside of my own, now seems to be confermed with the scientific
      method.

      that's remarkably myopic. seeing anything on any kind of equipment the equipment itself could be part of the illusion. He's just opening a recursion that will engage him a morass of illusion because you can't confirm that the conformation is not an illusion without opening up to another illusion.

      Now understand the role this plays in my world view. why it's important in my argument. Not because I really question reality, just the oppossite. I don't have to question reality because my judgement of reality is based upon the criteria that is already proved itself by getting me his far through navigating the world. The point about questioning reality is to illustrate why that criteria exists and why it's valid and why it's accepted by us as working.

      notice he has so far not said anything about the analysis material that I provided. I wonder why cause that material is very important in understanding the set up for the criteria. I would say that if he doesn't question that then he's tacitly accepting a prima facie case as valid.


      Also of note, we have studed the "mystical" experances of humans, and whatever
      it may or may not effect them in terms of health, or how they act in socity
      is not proof that those experances are real outside of the mind itself,
      after all, we dream odd and wonderfull and frighting dreams, that could,
      and have in the past, influcane us - does this then meen we must conseder
      dreams to be justifaction for thinking the dream is "real" - it is real, in the
      mind only, not in the world around us. All we can know is that people can
      produce what they refer to as "mystical" experances, but when asked to
      provide a framework or referance to them, no one can agree to terms or
      defentions about it, what is worse, it is not unique to any relgion at all,
      if there was a true God that was singular -
      he's made several mis understandings false assumptions about my arguemnts..

      (1) He asserts that there studies don't prove the experiences are real outside the mind. I don't know if he means doesn't prove their origin is outside the mind, becuase that would be bad way to express it but it makes more sense than asking if the experience itself is real.

      (a) no reason to doubt the reality of the experience. that's the whole point of the argument, that it fits the criteria we use to judge reality and thus we should accept it as real to the same extent we accept any experience.

      (b) if the means the studies the studies can't prove the experience originates in something extremal to our minds; they don't have to. It's the skeptics to burden of proof to prove they don't because all the known reason why it would be can be eliminated logically thus there is no reason to assume otherwise. Moreover, no data anywhere suggests that the same effects can be conjured up by an attempt of the will to reproduce it.

      (2) assumption about dreams is misconception:

      "after all, we dream odd and wonderfull and frighting dreams, that could,
      and have in the past, influcane us - does this then meen we must conseder
      dreams to be justifaction for thinking the dream is 'real'"

      that implies that he thinks the argument says that God must be the case because it's a such a wonderful experience I never argued such a thing. clearly the arguemnt turns upon epistemological grounds. read it again.

      (3) misconception about nature of mystical experience.

      he to assume we can bring them on at will.

      (a) "All we can know is that people can
      produce what they refer to as "mystical" experances, but when asked to"

      that's not proved. there are triggers that enhance their likilhood but you can't make them happen at will. Evoking triggers apart from the religious experince aspect has been known to produce result not like those mystics get. For example the Phanke study (Good Friday) produced some reactions to the mushrooms that would be classified in 60s parlance as "*******g out."


      (b) charge about frame work is wrong

      "provide a framework or referance to them, no one can agree to terms or
      defentions about it, what is worse, it is not unique to any relgion at all,
      if there was a true God that was singular"

      Hood's M scale validates the work of W.T. Stace and is corroborated by at least a dozen studies in a half dozen different cultures. We can use the Stace theory all the way it's the most corroborated by empirical means of any theoretical perspective on mysticism. (see the Link to Hood's text book, chapter 11:

      http://books.google.com/books?id=N6R...um=7&ct=result

      Then he plays the second guess God game:

      "why would it alow spirtual or
      mystical experances to take place other then those that (G) wanted and/or desired
      to take place? One could, I supose, say that God does not want to interfer
      with free will, and alows people to experance false mystical experances.
      In that case, the question would become, how do we know what one is "real"
      and what one is "false"?"

      this misconception is based upon a huge number of false assumptions:

      (1) Assumes God reasons like a man
      (2) I have no idea what he means by "take place?"
      (3) assume mystical experience is false, imply he doesn't doesn't' understand the nature of it.

      mystical or peak experience is not just old image or vision or voices or silly ideas about religion. They are consistent from every culture (meet the criteria o consistency and inter subjective).(Hood Ibid, chapter ll see link above, also see this link:
      http://www.doxa.ws/experience/mystical.html

      see arguent IA2 Lukoff and Lu also back up the notion of mystical experiences being consistent across culture. It's not visions and voices. it's a sense undifferentiated unity and the sens of the numinous.

      to answer his question "how do we know what is real and what is false?" by what works, what enables navigation in life. That which is transfomational and that which enables us to get by in life, these are the equivalent of "what works for navigation." that's how we use the criteria to make judgments about the reality of our perceptions in the first place.

      IH says:
      "We can not know that there is a "devine" reality, we can be TOLD this is true,
      we can BELIVE it is true, we can THINK it is true, but we have zero tests for it,
      we have zero messurments of it, and the only "evedance" for it is that people
      can experance something they call mystical or spirtual."
      That's obviously false to say that we have no test. The emphasis upon "think" we THINK something is true should not get in the way. We are talking about the point were we have can't prove it becasue it's beyond our epistemological ability. we can rip away the veil of reality and see the face of God. It's not a matter of establishing certainty because as I prove already even science can't do that epistemologically. WE have to make a judgement! that's the point of calling it "cirteria for epistemic judgement."

      The test is the criteria and it's navigational outcome. that's the test we use anyway for all our perceptions and my argument just says we can extent to it religious experience. religious experience passes the test so we should trust it.



      IH says:
      "This "evedance" is in quotes because it is not evedance at all, it is all in the mind,
      and that is all it is. What I am after is to see that this is real outside the mind,
      and there seems no way to show conclusivly that this is true."
      He's trying to evoke a criteria that he never bothered to present or justify. The criteria being positive scientific proof. I think he's trying to iply that my arugment doesn't give us "scientific proof" or certainty or absolute proof. Without providing an adequate foundation for such ideas (science is not about proof as Popper tells us) he has no argument. He has not challnged the criteria of epistemic judgement adequately and thus there is no basis for such a demand as absolute proof or scientific proof> i have scinece evdience, 200 empirical studies published in academic journals.

      none of you have read them, you spend your time telling me what they don't say, but since you have not read them you don't what they do say. They all say in one way or anther things that reinforce the notion that these experiences fit the criteria I am advancing: epistemic judgement.
      The studies show they are regular, consistent, inter-subjective (shared) and navigational. that's where the transformation comes in, that's navigation.

      His attempts at belittling the evidence have failed on three counts:

      (1) I have scientific evidence,e a huge body of work that backs up at the point that Need to back up, that the experiences fit the criteria!

      (2) he does not establish a proper foundation for putting a case for alternative criteria and he tacitly accepts mine

      (3) since the issue is epistemic judgement and not absolute proof--the resolution only says rational warrant not proof--there is no basis for absolute proof as a criteria.
      Last edited by Metacrock; 03-06-12, 07:39 PM.
      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."

      Comment


      • #4
        2AC (part 2)

        IH says:
        The only fall back seems to be to retort that therefor, we can not be sure of
        anything at all, because we can not be sure of this one thing: is God real?
        No one, not one person, will auguge about the moon's existance. No one,
        not one person, will auguge about the existance of tangable and testable objects,
        at least, other then the philopicer with a bit too much time on there hands.
        I do not for a moment object to thinking about such things, I quite injoy
        doing so myself. But, reality, and the truth, is all in the answer we
        as a person, and we, as a race, proclaim the answer to the third question:"
        as I say above the third question "how do we know" the answer is "we know by what works, what gets us through life."

        here he seems to misapprehend the way epistemology functions in my argument. I've pinioned this out above. The epistemic limitations on absolute certainty set up the need for making a judgement and that set's up the criteria for judgement. Now he has failed to question that and he has failed to present his own coutner criteria. He has only one more constructive speech in which he can dot that. In hte mean time note: his argument here is invalid because his assumption is wrong.



        "How do we best determin what is real?"

        best or not the way we do it is by the criteria that I sketched out.

        regular
        consistent
        inter subjective (which is where corroboration comes in)
        navigation (which works to get us through life)

        IH says:
        "The answer to that question, for those who belive in God/Gods/gods/god seems
        to be: "because I can feel it" I can feel love, yet I now KNOW it is nothing
        more then a chemcial reaction."
        He's trying to impose another logic upon my argument. I have never made "feeling" a criterion.
        that's the imposition of a straw man argument.

        I would not say love is nothing more than chemical reaction. I certainly do not "know" that and neither does he. That's just reductionist propaganda.


        IH:
        "I can feel pain, but I know too how that works,
        and why it is there, yet pain is only in my mind, others can also feel pain,
        and I can know this by testing and varafaction. I can know a great deal
        of things by experments and tests, yet on this "sprirt" question, it remains
        for some reasion that excapes me, untestable by every single meens we have tryed.
        Why? If there is such a relm, it would seem we would have access to it."
        again, he's making a straw man argument. he's trying to force my argument into terms of feeling things that's never the issue. his assertions about "a realm" are not part of my world view they are not endemic to belief in God so they are not par tof the debate.t hey are nonstarters (and straw men).

        I believe in possibility of a realm outside of God's mind but that's not important because I don't claim to prove it and it's not necessary for belief. It could just as well be that the one and only realm of is that of God's mind--since I believe we are thought in God's mind we are already part of that realm.

        IH:
        "Perhaps, I sugest, the relm exists only in the mind, and no where else."

        God's mind. just as there is no beyond the beach ball. There's no beyond god's mind. Beach ball, that is if we think of space/time as a beach ball, there is no proof that we can go "beyond it."



        IH:
        "Thus, my answer to question three is: the best way to know if something is
        real is by emperical testing, evedance, or access to it. And, so, my answer
        to the question is God real - is "only in the mind" as far as if the religous
        belife is justifyed - it is not, unforantly, those who belive do so not because
        of reality, but because of an emotonal and evolutanary need to explain the universe
        we are in, the basic trates that keep us alive and help us to surive make us
        assume there is a mind behind actions."
        He's still inserting a straw man instead of listening to understand my beliefs. It is me he is supposed to be debating, not some atypical Christian based upon all the apologists he's met before.

        (1) he has not answered the epistemological issue, and his argument does not establish a coutner criteria. that means he has to accept (until he does offer one) my assumption that we have to make epistemic judgement and we do by the means of the criteria I've laid out.

        (2) the third question is answered in terms of navigation which RE (religious experience) meets just as it meets all the criteria.

        (3) in asserting that experience is the resut of emotion he's merely inserting his own assumption rather than understanding or answering my arrangement.

        (4) he asserts that religion is the result of the need to explain; that's an old fashioned idea form 19th century when social scinece first got started. Its' not used to day and it's not true. Religious belief exists becuase of the sense of hte numinous. The opposite of what the atheist things, Not to explain nature but becasue we have this sense of God's presence. (read artical by Thomas A. Idinopuloys http://www.crosscurrents.org/whatisreligion.htm see also David Stendhal Rast
        http://csp.org/experience/docs/steindl-mystical.html Jane Gackenback
        "The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical". The essence of the mystical experience has been debated for years (Horne, 1982). It is often held that "mysticism is a manifestation of something which is at the root of all religions (p. 16; Happold, 1963)." The empirical assessment of the mystical experience in psychology has occurred to a limited extent."
        http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm and Huston Smith



        IH:
        "If a rock hits my head, I turn around and
        look for who threw it - I do so because assuming it is a mind behind the action
        assures my survial more then not assuming so. If I found no one, and could find
        no other explation, I might assume it is a mind I can not see - a "rock throwing god"
        if you will. And, I would sugest, this is how the idea of gods came to be, a simple
        explaition of things we can not understand, and yet, desperatly want to
        control."
        Here he's trying to impose phony atheist think as opposed ot actually consider the quailia. He's making the assumption that belief in God is some constrict as opposed to all other thoughts so it must be weeded out. anyting put into language is a construct. Ideas are not false just becuase they are constructs. the idea of God is not just a construct but also a metahpor that points to the experiences in the sense o the numinous. To that extent the concept of God is empirical. Rather it's the co-determinate of the empirical.

        We can also evoke Schleiemracher at this point. The feeling of utter dependence is empirical and it goes around the senese data to furnish a co-determinetae.

        IH:
        "Science has provided us with more tools to reign in this envorment that we
        find ourselfs in, not full tools to be sure, but more then we had before.
        It seems that the God of the Christan Bible saw fit to give women "more pain"
        in Genisis as a punnishment for sin, thanks to sceince it seems we have outsmarted
        God, as women can have totaly pain free (and thanks to more reserch) totaly
        pill free AND pain free births now. We have also outsmarted much of the things that
        kill us, although we have not quite found imortality."
        He's using the fortress of facts concept to set up a rebuke of the straw man that comes of literizing the myth. The fortress of facts is invalid as we see form reading Popper. science is not a fortress of facts. The notion that the fortress will dispel "myth" such as religion is romanticized version f the enlightenment propaganda.

        He's saying because we can dispel the myth of genesis then belief in god is not warranted. We don't need to genesis to bleieve in God. that argument falls. in literailzing the myth he is merely setting up a straw man. His arguemnt only applies to fundie Christians. there are more believers in God in the world than fundie Christians so therefore it doesn't apply.


        IH:
        "God, if it is real outside the mind, seems to only alow some people to experance
        anything about it, and then,"

        William James argues that there's a continuum of experience from subliminal aspects that are barely notice able to out and out visions. Mystical experince straches somewhere within that continuum. We can't say God only allows certain people to experince.

        (1) incedense rate is high, 1 in 4 perhaps.
        (2) anyone can have a mystical experience by evoking the triggers. not at will but with the proper appraoch.
        (3) we don't need that to believe. That's aside from the argument that it fits the criteria and can be trusted. those who don't have ti can study ratioanl reasons to trust it in others.



        IH:
        "to add confusion to the mix, alows people to disagre on
        said experance, and to debate about if that experance is really from said God, or
        rather from some evil God (Devil/Satan/etc) or perhaps the person is a lier, in error,
        or perhaps the simplest explation; perhaps this mystical and spritual experances
        are not from God or of God at all, but a product of our brain. BUT, if it is God,
        then this God is not a caring God, it is a God of confusion and misdirection,
        it is a God of hide and go seek. It is not a God worthy of respect, reverance, worship."
        that's not relevant. the M Scale provides a valid scientifically based corroborated cross cultural means of establishing Stace's theory as the universal understanding of the basis of such experience. (see Hood link above) he's also imposing the mythology of satan from Christian lore I never said I was defending Christian lore, just belief in God per se.

        Yes, kiddies I am a Christian but for the purposes of this debate that's not what I'm defending.


        IH;
        "If that is what God is, and only if God is real, then all religon's belifes are false
        since none of them currently line up with this objective statment about God."

        debate topic said nothing about defending religion. belief in God is warranted. do with it what you will. you go decide what faith to belong to that's another matter. ( I can make suggestions if you wish but not as a part of the debate).

        IH:
        "Of course, if there is a religon that does, I am unaware of it, but I'd like to know
        about them, because they would be closer to the truth of the matter, and maybe there
        God can actualy be verifyed... but I'm not holding my breath."
        my model is (just to inform you of my habit) one reality behind many expressions. In other words the one true God behind all faiths. It's the cultural constructs through which expreinces of God must be filtered in order to talk about them that makes religions seem different. So it's the culture that makes the differences. the sameness is the reality of God. Jesus is co-extensive with that reality. that is what saves me from the horrible fate of being tagged with the evil "U" word.
        that one reality is co-

        read my essay on Salvation and other faiths.

        http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/salvation_others2.html
        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."

        Comment


        • #5
          Shifting the burdan back to me, or any skeptic to prove that mystical or spritual experances are outside the mind. Nice one there. But it did not slip by. Meta basicly says that I have made a strawman, then attacked it, if so, then my point gets reduced, I'll alow the reader to deside. My point is that, this "experance" whatever it is can only be in the mind, we have as yet no way to verify it outside of the mind. When I referance love (emotions) as an example, I call to attention the fact that we know via sceince that it is a chemical reaction in our mind. I assume - yes assume, that that is all it is, and I hold to that untill I see more evedance to sugest otherwise.

          If there is true experance, there apperes to be people who truely can not experance it, and it is non-unique to any relgion. This it tells us nothing about the experance at all. The fact that no one can gain anything new from said experance, ie: no new knowalge - shows that even IF we accepted that this experance showed us there is a reality beound what we all conseder reality, this other reality does not help us in THIS reality at all, thus this spritual and/or mystical experance is utterly useless.

          Rather then show God is real:
          "It’s not that God is proved to exist but that our perception that he does is justified as an assumption by the warrant."
          We percevice (not with the the 5 sences mind you) that (G) is real. What version? What type of God? Why can not all people access this percevice? Ah here in the question answered thus:

          "(1) Assumes God reasons like a man" this is my suposed misconception in the augment. I apperently was foolish enough to think that I could understand who or what God is, let alone how it reasons. Basicly, God thinks way outside of my, and all human boxes!
          Two questions arise from this idea: One - how do you (or anyone) know that God thinks above and beound us?
          And two: How can we know anything about God if it is so beound or above us?

          Clearly, a question is not a debate. My augment stands as follows:

          Mystical and/or spirtual experances are in the brain. (Andrew Newburg studys) this tells us nothing more then this experance, whatever it is,
          is indeed happening in the brain.

          Andy Thomson gives his talk titled 'Why We Believe in Gods' at the American Atheist 2009 convention in Atlanta, Georgia. is where my augment of how humans came up with God's comes from, my version is no where close to this - and (due to board/fourm restrictions) I can not post the link, but it is on youtube.

          We can not come to any conclsion of "where" or "who" the spritual/mystical experances "come from" they seem to be generated only by people who allready belive in (X) religon. If the postive results point towards such a reality, why do the negitive results (those who can not experance it) not point to a non-reality? The best conclusion I submit is the answer is that it is in the brain, and no where else. My suport is that it has not shown to be anywhere else. No spritual/mystical experance gives us new knowalge, a better way to deal with this world, or any agreed upon truth.

          Depending upon this internal experance to justify God seems to me to be depending on feeling rather then knowalge. I know about reality, and do not just have to experance it the same way that spritual/mystical experances are produced. In fact, such experances require one to be non-involved with our reality.

          Even if I were to alow all the premices and conclusion, at best we would have a God who cares not about how we as humans percive God. And this is what I've covered allready. I do not think that such a God who is uncaring would be a very good God, but it might in fact, be God.

          If there is a spritual/mystical reality - and I dont know that there is, but suspect it only exists in our brain - then this reality does not help us in this real world and it would even if it did exist, only prove its own existance, not "God" and sertenly not any patular version of God. We are of course , still referancing the universalistic idea of God - since we can not define what it is.

          At best, there are some humans who can have spritaul and/or mystical experances, and those humans deside what that meens for them. That is all we can know about the matter. Anything more is speculation.
          Originally posted by ferengi
          Do yu realize you just contradicted yourself? If triangles ONLY exist in the mind - how can they be found? You are incorrect. They are called The Great Pyramids - they are triangles-they are outside the mind.
          Without God morality will be George Bush.

          Comment


          • #6
            point of info

            you are supposed to get two speeches a row you have another rebuttle coming. INR

            fist negative rebuttal.

            schemeatic

            1AC
            1NC
            2AC
            2NC
            1NR comes next
            1AR
            2NR
            2AR (last speech--debate ended)
            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."

            Comment


            • #7
              Well, I have a rebuttle alowed - My oppenent has layed out that spritual/mystical experances warrent religous belifes because we experance reality - however, reality is something that almost all humans can and do experance dayly without any futher instruction (the few execepions would be mentaly challenged, brain deformatys, one child who was born with just his brain steem, etc) for someone to get to the experance of the mystical/sprital you must be taught HOW to get to it, typicaly with some relgion doing said teaching.

              Also, again, note that not all people can acheeve the goal of getting into the state. The state always is after instruction, at least as far as I know, I would be suprised to see someone have an experance before any training or religous ideas. Even if such a person existed, it would more then likely be the exeception rather then the normal.

              Basicly, I just do not see that this experance justifys anything beound the experance itself. It does not lead to any new knowalge, it does not lead to any conclusive conclusion. All it proves is that some people can have the experance.

              When I was a Christan I had a few experances that I would have classifed as spirtual, they felt very good, warm, uplifting and so on - I have no reasion to conclued the experance is anything other then my own brain at work. At the time I belived they were more, now I am not as sure, and suspect they are nothing more then just the brain at work. When I ask for any way to know - ie: afferm they are true, I get no answer other then just trust that it is true or real. This is not enough for me.

              For one other point, my oppenet sugested that we can not answer the question of how we best determin the truth, and I disagre - the tool I would use is the scientific method, as it produces results and can be tested repeatly until we have a better answer then we do now. The idea of say, homopathy has been shown to be nothing more then a plasebo effect by science, thus I know to avoid spending money on it. With the "power bracelets" that athlets sometimes wear that have magnets or silver or what-have-you that is ment to help you perform have shown no evedance of any specal ablitys when tested, and if they had any power everyone should use them, there is no proof and thus we do not think it is true. Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works. For those who say it is not enough are almost always refering to ideas that are not scientific in nature, "supernatural" things are of course "beound nature" well- then how can we possibly know it is real or true? With no test or emperical evedace we have nothing to go on. A huch or gut feeling or emotion is not enough.

              I still am waiting to see what, if any proof we have that mystical/spritual experances prove anything beound there own internal experance.
              Originally posted by ferengi
              Do yu realize you just contradicted yourself? If triangles ONLY exist in the mind - how can they be found? You are incorrect. They are called The Great Pyramids - they are triangles-they are outside the mind.
              Without God morality will be George Bush.

              Comment


              • #8
                1AR: Answering 2NC

                part 1



                1AR

                Answering 2NC arguemnts:



                before turning to his arguments, let me point out what he missed.

                (1) the resolution calls for proving rational warrant, not proving the existence of God. I have done so I will demonstrate.

                (2) he never challenges the criteria I laid down through which we determine reality.

                IH: Shifting the burdan back to me, or any skeptic to prove that mystical or spritual experances are outside the mind. Nice one there. But it did not slip by.
                I don't have to shift the burden of proof. My argument meets it's prmia facie burden so ti's burden to overturn he PF status.

                I also said that it is major and irresolvable epistemological dilemma to prove that an experience is outside the mind. We can't get outside our experiences to check them. So we can only make a judgement by using the best criteria we can find. I also suggest that we use this criteria habitually so we can't help but use it.He says nothing about this: it destroys his whole argument about proving the experience originates outside the mind.

                It makes it unnecessary becasue the experience conforms to the criteria we use to check our experiences and thus we can assume and we have no choice but to assume that does originate beyond our own minds.

                Meta basicly says that I have made a strawman, then attacked it, if so, then my point gets reduced, I'll alow the reader to deside. My point is that, this "experance" whatever it is can only be in the mind, we have as yet no way to verify it outside of the mind. When I referance love (emotions) as an example, I call to attention the fact that we know via sceince that it is a chemical reaction in our mind. I assume - yes assume, that that is all it is, and I hold to that untill I see more evedance to sugest otherwise.
                He totally ignores the response that I gave. I said he's not distinguishing between the experience itself and it's origin. the experience itself has to be in the mind of course. that's our organ of perception. Yet the origin of the expedience we must assume is form beyond the mind becuase it conforms to the criteria we use to determine such things, and because it has tangible results and by process of elimination we can illeminate all coutner causes and that just leaves the divine.

                (1) conforms to the criteria of reality
                (2)tangible results.
                (3) process of elimination.

                nothing beats the navigation. It works to assume the experience is real. by "real" I mean originates beyond the mind. Doing so evokes the long term positive and makes for navigation. not assuming so means ignoring the navigation and not getting the effects.

                he says nothing about any of those. he actually leaves it unanswered.


                If there is true experance, there apperes to be people who truely can not experance it, and it is non-unique to any relgion. This it tells us nothing about the experance at all.
                (1) He has no data to prove there are those who can't experience, not studies show that.
                (2)it is contradicted by William James, Maslow and Wuthnow. those are two major studies and an empirical investigation involving case studies.


                The fact that no one can gain anything new from said experance, ie: no new knowalge - shows that even IF we accepted that this experance showed us there is a reality beound what we all conseder reality, this other reality does not help us in THIS reality at all, thus this spritual and/or mystical experance is utterly useless.
                this assertion is based upon two fallacies:

                (1)the charge of no new knowledge is defined and also contradicted (to the extent that we can understand the charge)by the notice aspect of the experience; the notice aspects are well documented. Its' when Hood included that aspect in the three part solution to the M scale that the M scale really resolved it's problems and was corroborated by other studies. so the first fallacy he's working in is the assumption of data where he had none and the ignoring of data that contradicts his assertion.

                (2)It is a fallacy to assume that the argument i make speaks of other realms. None of the studies claim to discover another real neither does my argument. that's a straw man arguemnt he's putting up based upon his misconception.

                we need not posit another realm to speak of the divine and experience of the divine. God is in this world and may well be coterminous with it for all I know. that is not the scope of my argument to unravel the mystery of God. his assertion that the experience doesn't help us is directly contradicted by most of the studies Off hand I site Wuthnow,Noble, Lukoff, Rosario, Maslow, Nielsen, Hood,Mohan, and others. It helps across the board, health, psychology, self actualization.


                here he quotes me in attacking the claim of warrant:

                Rather then show God is real:
                "It’s not that God is proved to exist but that our perception that he does is justified as an assumption by the warrant."

                We percevice (not with the the 5 sences mind you) that (G) is real. What version? What type of God? Why can not all people access this percevice? Ah here in the question answered thus:
                (1) remember he's making an unsupported assumption that not all people can experince what mystics experience.
                (2)He's asserting that the sense are the only true avenue of sensation; that doesn't matter if the actual texture of the experience is false,if the sense of presence is really not a presence, and so on. The result of the experience is concrete. Since they all experience the same qualia it's probalby a good reason to think ti's real but even if it's not the arguemnt doesn't turn on that but on the results of having the experience.



                "(1) Assumes Good reasons like a man" this is my suposed misconception in the augment. I apperently was foolish enough to think that I could understand who or what God is, let alone how it reasons. Basicly, God thinks way outside of my, and all human boxes!
                why not? wouldn't an infinite universal mind think outside our little limited boxes?


                Two questions arise from this idea: One - how do you (or anyone) know that God thinks above and beound us?
                I don't. I don't argue that God thinks at all. He doesn't have to. He knows. That's crucial God can know automatically the outcome of any senerio and anticipate all permutations and all probabilities, for our practical purposes even if he does this in a nano second it will be automatic to us. So why worry about him thinking?



                [quot]And two: How can we know anything about God if it is so beound or above us?[/quote]

                they are always baffled by the first side of the equation. arrogant man w know it al any suggest that we do not have all knowledge roughls the feathers of he scientific **** of the rock. they stick for the second half. the other side of the equation is "we know through mystical experience." We can know by experience even if we have no words for it. We put it into words by speaking analogically. Three ways to know:

                (1) deduction
                (2) revelation: God can tell us
                (3) experience: beyond words but we compare to analogy. (metaphors)



                Clearly, a question is not a debate. My augment stands as follows:

                Mystical and/or spirtual experances are in the brain. (Andrew Newburg studys) this tells us nothing more then this experance, whatever it is,
                is indeed happening in the brain.

                Newberg argues for the assumption of a reality to the experience beyond mere brain chemistry. that's his whole point in writing he is far from saying that his research takes down mystical experience, rather, he argues that he proves the reality behind it. He claims to disprove the empirical atheists.

                Newberg From Why God Wont Go Away:

                "A skeptic might suggest that a biological origin to all spiritual longings and experiences, including the universal human yearning to connect with something divine, could be explained as a delusion caused by the chemical misfiring of a bundle of nerve cells. But …After years of scientific study, and careful consideration of the a neurological process that has evolved to allow us humans to transcend material existence and acknowledge and connect with a deeper, more spiritual part of ourselves perceived of as an absolute, universal reality that connects us to all that is."(p10)


                "…Tracing spiritual experience to neurological behavior does not disprove its realness. If God does exist, for example, and if He appeared to you in some incarnation, you would have no way of experiencing His presence, except as part of a neurologically generated rendition of reality. You would need auditory processing to hear his voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of his message. Even if he spoke to you mystically, without words, you would need cognitive functions to comprehend his meaning, and input form the brain’s emotional centers to fill you with rapture and awe. Neurology makes it clear: there is no other way for God to get into your head except through the brain’s neural pathways. Correspondingly, God cannot exist as a concept or as reality anyplace else but in your mind. In this sense, both spiritual experiences and experiences of a more ordinary material nature are made real to the mind in the very same way—through the processing powers of the brain and the cognitive functions of the mind. Whatever the ultimate nature of spiritual experience might be—weather it is in fact an actual perception of spiritual reality—or merely an interpretation of sheer neurological function—all that is meaningful in human spirituality happens in the mind. In other words, the mind is mystical by default."(p37)

                Now he presents a talk at a conference for an organization of his disconnected disorganized group that are so un affiliated they have a national organization an present lectures helping their members think. That gag tag band that has no organization, except this one, and a hundred others like it.

                Andy Thomson gives his talk titled 'Why We Believe in Gods' at the American Atheist 2009 convention in Atlanta, Georgia. is where my augment of how humans came up with God's comes from, my version is no where close to this - and (due to board/fourm restrictions) I can not post the link, but it is on youtube.

                We can not come to any conclsion of "where" or "who" the spritual/mystical experances "come from" they seem to be generated only by people who allready belive in (X) religon. If the postive results point towards such a reality, why do the negitive results (those who can not experance it) not point to a non-reality? The best conclusion I submit is the answer is that it is in the brain, and no where else. My suport is that it has not shown to be anywhere else. No spritual/mystical experance gives us new knowalge, a better way to deal with this world, or any agreed upon truth.
                several contradictions there:



                (1) the first thing he says is "we don't know" then he's going to tel us.
                (2)He claims that they are among people who already believe and that's disproved by the evidence. I have at two studies in which 50% didn't believe when they had their experiences, the experiences are the reason they came to bleieve. I make this point over and over and no one listens.
                (3) In another study 45% were children when they had their experiences. the Hood textbook documents form several studies that children don't have doctrinal hang up or pre concepts of religious belief.
                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."

                Comment


                • #9
                  1AR answers to 2NC
                  part 2


                  My esteemed oppoent concludes that:"I submit is the answer is that it is in the brain, and no where else. My suport is that it has not shown to be anywhere else. No spritual/mystical experance gives us new knowalge, a better way to deal with this world, or any agreed upon truth."

                  (1) that's ignoring the real evidence which is the result of the experience, it's effect upon people who have it. it doesn't have to be from another realm to be from God.I am not a momist but having to sort out the nature of other realms is beyond the scope of the debate and it's not a necessary belief to believe in God.

                  (2) The whole gimmick is a sham because we have too limited a sample of the universe to have the knowledge to rule out other realms, he's merely begging the question. that we don't have evidence for them is irrelevant.

                  (3) There's plenty of possibly raised by science for other realms. I'm betting my worth opponent, if confronted with fine tuning argument would waste no time in arguign multiverse. we know the atheist guru of carm, Hans (alias HRG) treats MV as a done deal. How silly for an atheist to make noises like there are not other realms when they cling to them for so many answers.

                  We don't' need other realms to posit a concept of God so the arguemnt for rational warrant for belief based upon epistemic judgement and mystical experience does not depend upon other realms. We have the possibility we need in the strong force, the notion of big bang singularity and beyond event horizon. If our world (you remember reality right?) is a thought in the mind of God, the strong force could be the mental energy of God producing the image that we take as realty. That would mean that our world is a mental construct and there's one reality which produces the construct. There are a number of possibilities there's no reason to limit belief when our knowledge of reality is so scant.


                  Depending upon this internal experance to justify God seems to me to be depending on feeling rather then knowalge. I know about reality, and do not just have to experance it the same way that spritual/mystical experances are produced. In fact, such experances require one to be non-involved with our reality.
                  Trying to reduce the set of experience to mere "feeling" which backs all the baggage the atheist dread of subjectivity and so forth, is a reductionist move. I've stressed over and over the arguemnt turns upon the results of having had the experience not upon the feelings it producing while having it.

                  he makes a fallacious assumption (Notice NO DATA to back it up, just an assertion!)

                  (1)that mystical experience hinders us form reality. This is clearly disproved empirically by the studies since Wuthnow's mystics were actually doing better that most people: they were not deprived, the were better educated, they were more success financially, and so on.

                  (2) those who have this kind of experience are more self actualized than those who don't and less depressed, less likely to have mental problems.About a dozen studies show this latter point. By definition to be self actualized is to be more involved and more engaged and better adapted to reality.

                  (3)Rosario shows that those who these kinds of experiences are better able to cope with chronic pain and dying. Not only cope with pain but progress and feel growth an see themselves as moving forward and in a positive position in life. That means they are dealing with their issues better than those who have the experience. that's a better hands on appraoch to life.

                  I augured several times in the last speech that it's the navigational abilities bestowed by these experiences that prove their reality, rather furnish justification for assuming it. That's documented by most of the studies and that in itself disproves the assertion about not engaging with reality.

                  Even if I were to alow all the premices and conclusion, at best we would have a God who cares not about how we as humans percive God. And this is what I've covered allready. I do not think that such a God who is uncaring would be a very good God, but it might in fact, be God.
                  That's a ridiculous assertion. It stems probalby form the fallacious understanding of omnipotence. My worthy opponent probably assumes that God could smell next Thursday or do any other nonsense one could name because he misunderstands the concept of omnipotence. We need not assume that God is able to do contradictory nonsense. We can assume that omnipotence means Maximal greatness, the best that can be given the constraints of logcial necessity. Thus we can't expect that God would create sentient beings who can penetrate the epistemological dilemma. The empiricist fallacy is shaped by the logcial limitations of being flesh and blood.

                  to create free moral agents who willingly choose the good, I take to be goal of creation,God must accept that such creatures are limited then give them the ability to find him, which he has. The mystical experiences are a prefect way to do it becuase they undeniable. if one has one for real one can't deny it's reality.



                  If there is a spritual/mystical reality - and I dont know that there is, but suspect it only exists in our brain - then this reality does not help us in this real world and it would even if it did exist, only prove its own existance, not "God" and sertenly not any patular version of God. We are of course , still referancing the universalistic idea of God - since we can not define what it is.
                  Again the assertion of another reality is a straw man argument. We need not assert it. There could be one reality, God's mind, we are merely confused about what part it plays in our existence.

                  ON the other hand atheists are not in a position to deny other realities unless they want to accept fine tuning.

                  his assertions that the experienced don't help us are thoroughly disproved by most of the 200 studies which directly document the positive and valuable results of having the experience. He's totally ignoring the navigational aspects which are well documented. These experiences are transformative they dramatically change one's life for the better. all t he naturalistic coutner causes are negative and degenerative meaning the conditions result form pathology and get worse. there is no data at all none to suggest that religious experience is the latter.

                  page 2 on religious instinct arguemnt which quotes a dozen studies:

                  http://www.doxa.ws/experience/Instict2.html

                  page 1 on God argument no 7 (mystical experience) which documents over a dozen studies and lists the positives in Wuthnow and Nobel:

                  http://www.doxa.ws/experience/mystical.html

                  page argument 7 on Transformational power

                  http://www.doxa.ws/experience/mystical2.html

                  At best, there are some humans who can have spritaul and/or mystical experances, and those humans deside what that meens for them. That is all we can know about the matter. Anything more is speculation.
                  Notice one thing please, my friend IH has mot documented a single thing in this regard He has no data and I can tell you now no such data exists. I have researched this area and talked to the major researchers in the world NO data exists which puts RE in a negative light. It does not have disadvantages, it has no negative long term effects, it has no hindering of one's ability ot deal with life, it totally enhances the ability to deal with the world that is documented by a huge body of empirical work pushed in acadmeic journals. see the links abov
                  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."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    IAR: Answers to 1NR

                    Well, I have a rebuttle alowed - My oppenent has layed out that spritual/mystical experances warrent religous belifes because we experance reality - however, reality is something that almost all humans can and do experance dayly without any futher instruction (the few execepions would be mentaly challenged, brain deformatys, one child who was born with just his brain steem, etc) for someone to get to the experance of the mystical/sprital you must be taught HOW to get to it, typicaly with some relgion doing said teaching.

                    I'm sure my worthy opponent meant no harm but he is distorting my argument here. Perhaps it's my fault for not being clear. I never said that RE is experience of reality and ordinary experience of the mundane is not real. I said this in the 2AC that I never denieded the reality of the mundane.

                    He asserts, no documentation no back up, no proof, that one must be taught to receive mystical experience. That's empirically not true. I document that half the people in one data were children and half in another data base were unbelievers their experiences were their conversions.Even the "Good friday" experiment all the mystical experiences in their childhoods. Half the time the people in that study had experiences weren't even looking. Even among those who were looking no evidence they received instructions. A small group learn meditation and have them but most of the time they are untaught.


                    Also, again, note that not all people can acheeve the goal of getting into the state. The state always is after instruction, at least as far as I know, I would be suprised to see someone have an experance before any training or religous ideas. Even if such a person existed, it would more then likely be the exeception rather then the normal.

                    (1) I just disproved the notion that "it's always after instruction." It wasn't form me, I had no instruction.
                    (2)he has no data, doesn't document the stamtent
                    (3) that not everyone has it is not proof that they can't.
                    (4) I've already answered that in the 1NC saying I bleieve everyone can if they appraoch it right.






                    Basicly, I just do not see that this experance justifys anything beound the experance itself. It does not lead to any new knowalge, it does not lead to any conclusive conclusion. All it proves is that some people can have the experance.
                    Now he's just treating us to his opinion. Not that I don't want to hear the opinion of such an obviously intelligent perosn. Yet he has clearly done no research on the issues involving mystical experience.



                    When I was a Christan I had a few experances that I would have classifed as spirtual, they felt very good, warm, uplifting and so on - I have no reasion to conclued the experance is anything other then my own brain at work. At the time I belived they were more, now I am not as sure, and suspect they are nothing more then just the brain at work. When I ask for any way to know - ie: afferm they are true, I get no answer other then just trust that it is true or real. This is not enough for me.
                    NO offense but:

                    (1) anecdotal
                    (2) look carefully at my answers in this speech and in 1AC and 2AC. I never argue tahtt the way it felt was the point. I never said "O felt to so good it must be true." the argument turns entirely upon the result of having had it.

                    the idea that he had such an experience and it didn't take, he should score himself on the M scale first.

                    For one other point, my oppenet sugested that we can not answer the question of how we best determin the truth, and I disagre - the tool I would use is the scientific method, as it produces results and can be tested repeatly until we have a better answer then we do now.
                    I arleady answered this n my previous address. I am dealing with epistemology which is prior to scinece. The assertion that we can prove reality by scinece does not answer the epistemological problem. any scientific data could be part of he illusion.

                    there is no way around that. you can use scientific controls to check the check on the check on the check on the check and all you ever get is the need to check again because you can't get outside your own perceptions to see that it works.

                    that's the epistemological fallacy. aka empiricists dilemma.


                    The idea of say, homopathy has been shown to be nothing more then a plasebo effect by science, thus I know to avoid spending money on it. With the "power bracelets" that athlets sometimes wear that have magnets or silver or what-have-you that is ment to help you perform have shown no evedance of any specal ablitys when tested, and if they had any power everyone should use them, there is no proof and thus we do not think it is true. Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works.
                    Now he's using guilt by association. Here's this idea that's not part of my truth regime and it's suspect, this other thing is also not part of my truth regime so it should be suspected too. those suspect form of medicine don't have 200 empirical studies supporting them in academic journals and religious experience does.

                    The assertion that "If these things worked everyone would use them" is begging the question. If atheism was logical all logicians would be atheists they aer not. If atheism was true everyone would be an atheist instead of 3%.

                    guilt by association and appeal to popularity.



                    For those who say it is not enough are almost always refering to ideas that are not scientific in nature, "supernatural" things are of course "beound nature" well- then how can we possibly know it is real or true? With no test or emperical evedace we have nothing to go on. A huch or gut feeling or emotion is not enough.
                    He's imposing his idea of the supernatural without bother to understand mine.

                    he has not shown that bleief in the counterfeit idea of SN is necessary to either my vie or to mystical experience. nothing in the experience that mandates the phony version of supernatural.




                    I still am waiting to see what, if any proof we have that mystical/spritual experances prove anything beound there own internal experance.
                    That's already in 1AC. It was proved by the logical progression in the presentation of the argument. WE can't prove the nature of ultimate reality. to check our experiences we use a criteria.

                    regular
                    consistent
                    shared
                    navigational

                    a huge body of empirical scientific work I"ve documented form academic journals several times proves that religious experiences known as "Mystical" or "peak" fit this criteria. Because that's the way we determine reality we should trust mystical experiences to the same extent that we trust other experiences.

                    list of the studies. 50 more on Hood's vita that I didn't include here

                    http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com...e-studies.html
                    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."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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. 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.

                      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.

                      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.

                      The spritrual/mystical experance must be taught and is not easy to acheve, and not everyone that trys to can experance this.

                      The result of said spirtual/mystical experance upon the person who experancing it is not relevent: Even if everyone who has these things
                      can get a possitive life change from them, that still does not meen that the thing itself exists outside of the mind.

                      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.

                      -------
                      It was proved by the logical progression in the presentation of the argument. WE can't prove the nature of ultimate reality. to check our experiences we use a criteria.

                      regular
                      consistent
                      shared
                      navigational
                      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.

                      It is not shared by every and all humans, as meny people can not acheve it.

                      It is not regular as it must be LEARNED - you can not even experance it unless you learn how!

                      navigational - not at all, it does not give anyone new information about anything. 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.

                      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. 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 deal with life and so on, but this still is miles away from getting to my original question of "Is God real" my oppenent says
                      WE can't prove the nature of ultimate reality
                      I totaly disagre. We have proven a ton about reality with the scientific method, that, has been applyed to these mystical/spritual experances and has not found much of note, other then a hand full of those who want to suport that it is something more then it is. Again, my only referances I submit are the two names above, it would be I think, public knowalge that such experances were good for you phyicaly / mentaly. There might be a consenceis on this, but no doctor has ever recomended to me, or as far as I know, anyone that they should try to get mystical/spritual experance to get well. And, of course, the experance itself proves nothing more then that people can have the experance. It proves nothing more.

                      I thank my oppenent's use of words I have not seen - it makes me have to learn more to understand him at all learning is a good thing. I also have learned a ton more about the structure of debate then I ever knew before, and I find myself wanting for betterment of my understanding and use of formal structure. I find my knowalge of logic limited by my ablity to apply it to things that I have never encountered, the augment that was presented is one I have not seen as an augment before, and so, I was hard pressed to think of what, if any, logical augment I could make agenst it. I found that the only thing I could do was to try to deconstruct it and explain why it does not work to me and does not make sence to me.

                      I suspect that my technocal points on this one is in the negitve and I might have lost on a technocal level in this debate, as I am in the debate myself, I can not objectively analise it. On a persavive level (subjective) I hope that others will agree with points I made, and/or put my augment into a better format.

                      I have learned much from debating and again, thank my oppenent for his/her time to type, and read. I conclued with these quotes, I am not sure where they are from:

                      "Love as much as you can, to as meny people as you can, for as long as you can."
                      "The truth is the truth, regardles of if we like it, accept it, know it, or want it to be so, it is still the truth."

                      Peace and love to you and yours.
                      Originally posted by ferengi
                      Do yu realize you just contradicted yourself? If triangles ONLY exist in the mind - how can they be found? You are incorrect. They are called The Great Pyramids - they are triangles-they are outside the mind.
                      Without God morality will be George Bush.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        2AR final speech in the debate

                        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, 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."

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X