PDA

View Full Version : God Argument from epistemic jugement



metacrock
03-31-2016, 10:21 PM
Argument:


(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 bleievers all over the world, in different times and diffrent places, just as the exeternal world seems to be percieved the same by everyone.

(6) Real and Lasting effects.

(7) therefore, we have as much justification for assuming religious belief based upon experince as for assuming the reality of the external world or the existence of other minds.

*We assume reality by means of a Jugement

*we make such jugements based upon criteria

*Because RE fits the same criteria we are justfied in making the same assumption; ie that these experinces are idicative of a reality.

The criteria: If our experiences are:

*Regular
*consistant
*inter=subjective
*navigational

Then we assume our eperience3s reflect reality.

VIII. The Thomas Reid Argument.

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!

seer
04-01-2016, 04:37 AM
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!

That is exactly right meta, we can not logically or empirically demonstrate that what goes on in our minds corresponds to reality. Yet without that justification the atheist is willing to take the leap while criticizing the theist for pointing to personal experience as a rationale for the reality of God. As if the atheist lives on higher intellectual ground.

The Pixie
04-01-2016, 05:04 AM
Are you really trying to say that the evidence for the existence of God is comparable to the evidence for the existence of the chair I am sat on?

The reality is that I have very good reason to be confident that this chair exists. I accept I cannot be absolutely sure, but it is not far off. In contrast, the evidence for God is slim, and can be readily explained in other ways.

I guess what it comes down to is degrees of confidence. How confident can we be that unicorns exist? How about bigfoot? How about UFOs? To say we cannot be sure of anything, therefore we should assume everything is true seems to me the height of stupidity, and I hope no one around here is suggesting that!


ETA: Hi Metacrock, hope you are well.

metacrock
04-01-2016, 05:49 AM
That is exactly right meta, we can not logically or empirically demonstrate that what goes on in our minds corresponds to reality. Yet without that justification the atheist is willing to take the leap while criticizing the theist for pointing to personal experience as a rationale for the reality of God. As if the atheist lives on higher intellectual ground.

LOL right higher ground where they refuse to look at evidence.

metacrock
04-01-2016, 05:59 AM
Are you really trying to say that the evidence for the existence of God is comparable to the evidence for the existence of the chair I am sat on?

The reality is that I have very good reason to be confident that this chair exists. I accept I cannot be absolutely sure, but it is not far off. In contrast, the evidence for God is slim, and can be readily explained in other ways.

Hey man good to see you again. give my regards to the old gang.

I understand that it's not the same degree of certainty but it's just as deep seated for one who has had those experiences.



I guess what it comes down to is degrees of confidence. How confident can we be that unicorns exist? How about bigfoot? How about UFOs? To say we cannot be sure of anything, therefore we should assume everything is true seems to me the height of stupidity, and I hope no one around here is suggesting that!

I guess if you had the experience you believe it as strongly as any other. I think it['s they way it works out to improve your life that really decides it.


I had an interesting experience last year I was in a coma for two months I was in at coma. I was living in a self contained reality that I took to be real life. But looking back on it I see it was just a series of dreams and worked by dream logic. my experiences of God do not work by dream logic and they fit into my real life.

metacrock
04-01-2016, 10:44 AM
come on atheists put your money where your mouth is

metacrock
04-01-2016, 09:07 PM
they are really afraid of this one. you would Christians would get the idea eventually.

Psychic Missile
04-01-2016, 09:12 PM
Can I get definitions of "the external world", "the reality of history", and "intersubjective religious experience"? I mostly understand your argument, but it doesn't ultimately make any truth claims, since we don't base what we think is true solely on personal experience. Your final statement involves the justification of an assumption, after all, and assumptions aren't proofs.

metacrock
04-01-2016, 09:26 PM
Can I get definitions of "the external world", "the reality of history", and "intersubjective religious experience"? I mostly understand your argument, but it doesn't ultimately make any truth claims, since we don't base what we think is true solely on personal experience. Your final statement involves the justification of an assumption, after all, and assumptions aren't proofs.

the external world = world external to our own minds. "reality of history" is the truth of what happened before our existence. Intersubjective is what we have instead of objectivity. It's the mutual experience of the same nature. In other words people who have mystical experiences are not having each others experiences but their experiences are so much a like they can be taken experience of the same object.

I think we do base things on personal experience at a very fundamental level. even when we accept verified truth from other sources there's a chain of assumptions going back to personal experience verifying the veracity of certain kinds of sources. Such as argument from authority is undergirded by personal lessons in the veracity of authority.

It claims to warrant believe not prove truth. that means the bar should be lower not higher. The final assumption flows out of the veracityof the previous premises.

Psychic Missile
04-04-2016, 05:38 PM
the external world = world external to our own minds. "reality of history" is the truth of what happened before our existence. Intersubjective is what we have instead of objectivity. It's the mutual experience of the same nature. In other words people who have mystical experiences are not having each others experiences but their experiences are so much a like they can be taken experience of the same object.

I think we do base things on personal experience at a very fundamental level. even when we accept verified truth from other sources there's a chain of assumptions going back to personal experience verifying the veracity of certain kinds of sources. Such as argument from authority is undergirded by personal lessons in the veracity of authority.

It claims to warrant believe not prove truth. that means the bar should be lower not higher. The final assumption flows out of the veracityof the previous premises.

I didn't realize you were taking the skeptic's approach. If that's the case, then why does it matter why someone believes something? What it takes for someone to believe something differs greatly between people and ideas, so I don't see the point to your argument. In other words, if we cannot prove the existence of reality, then what does it matter if I believe in God because I saw a red hat today or I believe in God because I was able to prove many Biblical truth claims regarding the divine with the scientific method or I believe in God because of the widespread inter-subjectivity of religious experience? Why should there be a bar at all?

metacrock
04-04-2016, 06:49 PM
I didn't realize you were taking the skeptic's approach. If that's the case, then why does it matter why someone believes something? What it takes for someone to believe something differs greatly between people and ideas, so I don't see the point to your argument. In other words, if we cannot prove the existence of reality, then what does it matter if I believe in God because I saw a red hat today or I believe in God because I was able to prove many Biblical truth claims regarding the divine with the scientific method or I believe in God because of the widespread inter-subjectivity of religious experience? Why should there be a bar at all?

It's notvskeptic's approach. I'm telling you why we don't live by skepticism even we can't supply absolute proof.

Psychic Missile
04-05-2016, 06:56 AM
It's notvskeptic's approach. I'm telling you why we don't live by skepticism even we can't supply absolute proof.

Then I think your requirements for proof are much more strict than the average person. The scientific method, for example, works with mere evidence, and the idea of absolute scientific proof is hubristic.

metacrock
04-05-2016, 07:06 AM
Then I think your requirements for proof are much more strict than the average person. The scientific method, for example, works with mere evidence, and the idea of absolute scientific proof is hubristic.

you don't even unjderstand what I said. I said nothng about absooute proof except that we can't get it. try to get it through your head

(1) we can't absolute proof

(2) we don't let that stop us from living we find other ways to navigate in life

(3) the chief way we find is to subject reality to our criteria that sketched out

(4) we take what works to enable our working in the world

(5) religious experience fits that criteria

(6) we should then be able to trust it because it fis the criteria

whag
04-05-2016, 04:15 PM
Argument:


(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 bleievers all over the world, in different times and diffrent places, just as the exeternal world seems to be percieved the same by everyone.

(6) Real and Lasting effects.

(7) therefore, we have as much justification for assuming religious belief based upon experince as for assuming the reality of the external world or the existence of other minds.

*We assume reality by means of a Jugement

*we make such jugements based upon criteria

*Because RE fits the same criteria we are justfied in making the same assumption; ie that these experinces are idicative of a reality.

The criteria: If our experiences are:

*Regular
*consistant
*inter=subjective
*navigational

Then we assume our eperience3s reflect reality.

VIII. The Thomas Reid Argument.

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!

Your argument ends up saying so much, it's really say nothing of particular interest. It's boring to discuss basic theistic belief justification apart from discussing the actual experiences. I'm a storyteller for a living. I like that pastors usually open with stories.

metacrock
04-05-2016, 08:19 PM
Your argument ends up saying so much, it's really say nothing of particular interest. It's boring to discuss basic theistic belief justification apart from discussing the actual experiences. I'm a storyteller for a living. I like that pastors usually open with stories.

what are you talking about? The argument proves that religious experience meets the criteria we use to judge reality as real. you have no answer to that. sorry but telling stories in a library is not analysis of my argumentation. you have no answer to my argument.

Psychic Missile
04-09-2016, 03:15 AM
you don't even unjderstand what I said. I said nothng about absooute proof except that we can't get it. try to get it through your head

(1) we can't absolute proof

(2) we don't let that stop us from living we find other ways to navigate in life

(3) the chief way we find is to subject reality to our criteria that sketched out

(4) we take what works to enable our working in the world

(5) religious experience fits that criteria

(6) we should then be able to trust it because it fis the criteria

Sorry for my misunderstanding. Do you consider results found through the scientific method subjective reality? How is it determined "what works"?

metacrock
04-09-2016, 08:49 AM
Sorry for my misunderstanding. Do you consider results found through the scientific method subjective reality? How is it determined "what works"?

the experience itself is subjective of course. It's also inter subjective because people are having the same kinds of experiences. Then the discovery of the corroboration of Stace's theory is based upon objective data. Even though that data is based upon subjective experience there are objective aspects that frame it as corroborated and validated, such as the statistically probability of lying their way to validating Stace.

metacrock
04-10-2016, 01:16 PM
that's three arguments os far you have failed to answer

JimL
04-10-2016, 05:56 PM
Argument:


(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 bleievers all over the world, in different times and diffrent places, just as the exeternal world seems to be percieved the same by everyone.

(6) Real and Lasting effects.

(7) therefore, we have as much justification for assuming religious belief based upon experince as for assuming the reality of the external world or the existence of other minds.

*We assume reality by means of a Jugement

*we make such jugements based upon criteria

*Because RE fits the same criteria we are justfied in making the same assumption; ie that these experinces are idicative of a reality.

The criteria: If our experiences are:

*Regular
*consistant
*inter=subjective
*navigational

Then we assume our eperience3s reflect reality.

VIII. The Thomas Reid Argument.

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!
Not sure if I am understanding your argument. Are you saying that, since all of our experience of reality could possibly be just an illusion taking place in our minds, we are justified in believing that reality is anything we want it to be?

metacrock
04-10-2016, 11:00 PM
Not sure if I am understanding your argument. Are you saying that, since all of our experience of reality could possibly be just an illusion taking place in our minds, we are justified in believing that reality is anything we want it to be?

No. I'm say we judge reality by a certain set of criteria and Religious experiences of a certain type meet that criteria. so we should trust them

Psychic Missile
04-14-2016, 02:49 AM
the experience itself is subjective of course. It's also inter subjective because people are having the same kinds of experiences. Then the discovery of the corroboration of Stace's theory is based upon objective data. Even though that data is based upon subjective experience there are objective aspects that frame it as corroborated and validated, such as the statistically probability of lying their way to validating Stace.

Then aren't objective aspects superior to subjective aspects when evaluating truth claims?

metacrock
04-14-2016, 12:39 PM
Then aren't objective aspects superior to subjective aspects when evaluating truth claims?

no. There is no objectivity only less subjective. The M scale and other studies are less subjective.

MattMurdock
05-14-2016, 02:39 PM
Are you really trying to say that the evidence for the existence of God is comparable to the evidence for the existence of the chair I am sat on?

The reality is that I have very good reason to be confident that this chair exists. I accept I cannot be absolutely sure, but it is not far off. In contrast, the evidence for God is slim, and can be readily explained in other ways.

I guess what it comes down to is degrees of confidence. How confident can we be that unicorns exist? How about bigfoot? How about UFOs? To say we cannot be sure of anything, therefore we should assume everything is true seems to me the height of stupidity, and I hope no one around here is suggesting that!


ETA: Hi Metacrock, hope you are well.

I might as well weigh in here.

I believe the point that was being made is that for the Christian, their experience of God is epistemically comparable to your experience of the chair.

Now, your objection here is one I can readily predict. "But Matt, everyone can experience a chair that is right in front of them." Yes, only some people claim to experience God, while everyone can experience physical objects that are in front of them. Now, why do I not think this argument counters the Christian's attempt at at least establishing that the Atheist is unwarranted in writing off our experience of God? Quite simple, on the Christian narrative, it is not a surprise that only some claim to experience God. This is precisely the prediction made on the Christian narrative. So, why the spiritual blindness of so many? I don't know. I can hardly give a physiological diagnostic of that sort of thing, now can I.

The problem with this reasoning, as you may point out, is that it would imply that all beliefs cannot be criticized as irrational. If some claimed to have seen aliens, Santa, Bigfoot, etc, then we cannot write them off as crazy, on the simple basis that the rest of us "rational folk" were simply in a state of blindness.

1) This is hardly comparable to what is at least a logically coherent notion of seekers coming to know God through personal experience that many close themselves off to.

2) God is a virtually universal ontological apprehension that has been made all over the world and all throughout history since the dawn of man. This background information should at least give the "experience-of-God" hypothesis the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps not in the sense of us assuming it is true, but certainly in the sense that, taken in conjunction with the continued worldwide claims of experience, should at least be taken as rational. If that is too much, then perhaps taken as a hypothesis that is not "irrational" or "crazy".

JimL
05-14-2016, 06:52 PM
I might as well weigh in here.

I believe the point that was being made is that for the Christian, their experience of God is epistemically comparable to your experience of the chair.

Now, your objection here is one I can readily predict. "But Matt, everyone can experience a chair that is right in front of them." Yes, only some people claim to experience God, while everyone can experience physical objects that are in front of them. Now, why do I not think this argument counters the Christian's attempt at at least establishing that the Atheist is unwarranted in writing off our experience of God? Quite simple, on the Christian narrative, it is not a surprise that only some claim to experience God. This is precisely the prediction made on the Christian narrative. So, why the spiritual blindness of so many? I don't know. I can hardly give a physiological diagnostic of that sort of thing, now can I.

The problem with this reasoning, as you may point out, is that it would imply that all beliefs cannot be criticized as irrational. If some claimed to have seen aliens, Santa, Bigfoot, etc, then we cannot write them off as crazy, on the simple basis that the rest of us "rational folk" were simply in a state of blindness.

1) This is hardly comparable to what is at least a logically coherent notion of seekers coming to know God through personal experience that many close themselves off to.

2) God is a virtually universal ontological apprehension that has been made all over the world and all throughout history since the dawn of man. This background information should at least give the "experience-of-God" hypothesis the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps not in the sense of us assuming it is true, but certainly in the sense that, taken in conjunction with the continued worldwide claims of experience, should at least be taken as rational. If that is too much, then perhaps taken as a hypothesis that is not "irrational" or "crazy".
There is no more of a world wide claim of mental experiences of god than there is a world wide experience of people seeing their gods image in a potato chip or some other such material object. People equating their mental experiences as being experiences of god doesn't mean that their mental experiences are in fact experiences of god, it simply means that they are equating their mental experiences with the beliefs that feed those experiences.

MattMurdock
05-15-2016, 06:21 AM
There is no more of a world wide claim of mental experiences of god than there is a world wide experience of people seeing their gods image in a potato chip or some other such material object. People equating their mental experiences as being experiences of god doesn't mean that their mental experiences are in fact experiences of god, it simply means that they are equating their mental experiences with the beliefs that feed those experiences.

That's the thing. Seeing Jesus on a potato chip is a limited perceptual belief, not even in the same category as what I am talking about. Belief in something beyond and the idea that those whispers we let out alone are not completely lost to a void. It has even be argued that we are hard wired for this kind of belief. The philosophical tradition has talked of this all throughout its history. It is spread across countless cultures over several centuries.

All I have argued is that, given this background data, belief in God should not be taken as irrational.

JimL
05-15-2016, 08:36 AM
That's the thing. Seeing Jesus on a potato chip is a limited perceptual belief, not even in the same category as what I am talking about.
Yes and believing a mental experience to be an experience of god is a limited conceptual belief. Why shouldn't we dismiss such claims the same way we dismiss jesus on a potato chip?


Belief in something beyond and the idea that those whispers we let out alone are not completely lost to a void. It has even be argued that we are hard wired for this kind of belief. The philosophical tradition has talked of this all throughout its history. It is spread across countless cultures over several centuries.
I have my doubts about the hard wiring of religious beliefs, if by hard wired you mean being born with, beliefs are inculcated, ingrained like a mental virus spread throughout the social group.

All I have argued is that, given this background data, belief in God should not be taken as irrational.
I wouldn't say that belief in god is irrational, but that its rationality is based on ignorance. We don't understand why there is something rather than nothing, why there is a world rather than no world, so we reason that it must have been created. Not irrational on its face. But then you would need to ask the same question concerning the existence of a creative something, why is there a creative something rather than nothing? If it makes sense that something can simply exists, that it needn't be created, then I see no reason necessitating a creator, or to believe that it was created. Also, to believe that the world was created, you would also have to believe that something can be created out of nothing, and there is no way for us to come to that conclusion based on reason.

MattMurdock
05-15-2016, 05:06 PM
Yes and believing a mental experience to be an experience of god is a limited conceptual belief. Why shouldn't we dismiss such claims the same way we dismiss jesus on a potato chip?

Seeing Jesus on a potato chip is associating a pattern on a chip with a common image of what a historical figure is thought to look like. Taken in that way, that could be a reasonable subjective association, though inferring that it is intended to be the image of Christ on the chip is stretching credulity. Moreover, it isn't even close to being the same league as a very fundamental metanarrative about the world that is hard-wired into our brains and has been held to by countless cultures throughout the ages since the dawn of humanity.


As for the hard-wiring of beliefs, the following from Oxford psychologist Justin Barrett captures what I mean by that: “[b]elief in gods and God particularly arises through the natural, ordinary operation of human minds in natural ordinary environments.” (Barrett, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?, 124).



As for that last paragraph, I think you give a perfect representation of the misunderstanding many skeptics have of the endeavor of natural theology, especially the so-called New Atheists. These arguments, first of all, do not simply try to plug in gaps in our understanding of nature and reality with God. William Hasker describes what these arguments attempt to do perfectly when discussing Reppert's Argument from Reason:

“The objection is not merely that naturalism has not yet produced an explanation...as though this were a deficiency that could be remedied by another decade or so of scientific research. The problem is that the naturalist is committed to certain assumptions that preclude in principle any explanation of the sort required. The key assumptions are three in number: mechanism (the view that fundamental physical explanations are nonteleological), the causal closure of the physical domain, and the supervenience of the mental on the physical.” (Hasker, “What About a Sensible Naturalism?: A Response to Victor Reppert,” in Philosophia Christi 5, 61).

shunyadragon
05-15-2016, 05:14 PM
It's notvskeptic's approach. I'm telling you why we don't live by skepticism even we can't supply absolute proof.

Absolute truth is a scapegoat of unimaginable proportions. What is lacking here is a reasonable coherent argument that connects the dotes.

The Pixie
05-18-2016, 05:16 AM
I thought this discussion had died, so sorry for taking so long to reply.

I believe the point that was being made is that for the Christian, their experience of God is epistemically comparable to your experience of the chair.
Agreed. Metacrock and I have crossed swords on this at CARM, as well.

Now, your objection here is one I can readily predict. "But Matt, everyone can experience a chair that is right in front of them." Yes, only some people claim to experience God, while everyone can experience physical objects that are in front of them. Now, why do I not think this argument counters the Christian's attempt at at least establishing that the Atheist is unwarranted in writing off our experience of God? Quite simple, on the Christian narrative, it is not a surprise that only some claim to experience God. This is precisely the prediction made on the Christian narrative. So, why the spiritual blindness of so many? I don't know. I can hardly give a physiological diagnostic of that sort of thing, now can I.
In what sense is that a prediction?

Looks to me like an after-the-fact rationalisation.

The problem with this reasoning, as you may point out, is that it would imply that all beliefs cannot be criticized as irrational. If some claimed to have seen aliens, Santa, Bigfoot, etc, then we cannot write them off as crazy, on the simple basis that the rest of us "rational folk" were simply in a state of blindness.

1) This is hardly comparable to what is at least a logically coherent notion of seekers coming to know God through personal experience that many close themselves off to.
Why is it not comparable? People who claim to see aliens often give pretty similar descriptions of the aliens. As far as I know, mystical experiences are far more varied.

2) God is a virtually universal ontological apprehension that has been made all over the world and all throughout history since the dawn of man. This background information should at least give the "experience-of-God" hypothesis the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps not in the sense of us assuming it is true, but certainly in the sense that, taken in conjunction with the continued worldwide claims of experience, should at least be taken as rational. If that is too much, then perhaps taken as a hypothesis that is not "irrational" or "crazy".
I would not say it was crazy, but nevertheless this is pretty weak evidence. Your virtually universal ontological apprehension presumably includes gods like Mercury and Odin? So you argument is equally good at justifying belief in their pantheons. Would you say someone in our era who believed in the Roman pantheon was rational?

InspectorG
05-19-2016, 05:04 PM
Argument:

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



Peak experiences can be powerful and life altering(for the better), but how do separate the Supernatural from Entheogen usage and/or Meditative techniques?

Particularly if we cannot prove the 'outside' world?

Doug Shaver
06-19-2016, 05:38 AM
(4) religious experience can also be regular and consistent, perhaps not to the same degree, but in the same way.A difference in degree can become a difference in kind.

shunyadragon
06-19-2016, 11:58 AM
Argument:


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

OK, that's obvious, neither can empirical evidence nor the lack of justify an argument for the existence of God.


(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.

True, so what?!?!?


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

Consistency nor the inconsistency of personal experience is to anecdotal to be the key of anything.


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


Unfortunately religious experience is highly irregular and inconsistent.

shunyadragon
06-19-2016, 06:44 PM
LOL right higher ground where they refuse to look at evidence.

What evidence?


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