Universal nature of liberal experience

[metacrock]

Mystical experiences are the same the world over. The differences come in where people try not explain them then they fall back upon religious doctrine and culture. The universal nature is a good argument for God.

(1) Religion is cultural constructed

(2) Religious experiences transcend culture

(3) culturally constructed experi9ence can't transcend culture unless people are experiencing an objective reality.

(4) Therefor, since the experiences are the same there must be an objective reality that is being experienced

(5) the content of the experience is about the divine therefore, the reality experienced the divine.

Here is an essay that explains how the studies work and makes arguments

[metacrock]

you can pretend it's not here but it disproves the BS he spews in the other thread.

[Faber]

(4) Therefor, since the experiences are the same there must be an objective reality that is being experienced

I would hesitate on that point. Look at how many people have near-death experiences. They all describe a tunnel with light at the end. Or at least all the ones that get published. Does that confirm that they all went to heaven? I'd rather think that they all had the sudden loss of blood pressure leading to the same sensation.

[Tassman]

you can pretend it's not here but it disproves the BS he spews in the other thread.

No one's saying that that you did not present the Universal Arguments for the Existence of God, just that they're all 'god-of-the-gap' arguments. That is "the logical fallacies that occur when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[metacrock]

I would hesitate on that point. Look at how many people have near-death experiences. They all describe a tunnel with light at the end. Or at least all the ones that get published. Does that confirm that they all went to heaven? I'd rather think that they all had the sudden loss of blood pressure leading to the same sensation.

The problem is I have specific research establishing this. It's not just speculation you are comparing it to other things that you've heard, but it's established by specific studies. You are arguing from anecdote but my point is established by a number of specific studies.

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/0...ural-part.html


you can't explain the kind of dramatic changes in life experienced in tye studies by theories about blood pressure.

[metacrock]

No one's saying that that you did not present the Universal Arguments for the Existence of God, just that they're all 'god-of-the-gap' arguments.

there is no gap. you are just searching for a term to sound official that term doesn't[t apply they turn on a gap they have positive proof through empirical research

That is "the logical fallacies that occur when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered."

explin what yo8 think that term means and why you think it fits here>? where's the gap?

you put up a link that nothing to do with my argument. your link apparel says all God arguments are GOTG and that is BS.

[Roy]

Mystical experiences are the same the world over. The differences come in where people try not explain them then they fall back upon religious doctrine and culture. The universal nature is a good argument for God.

(1) Religion is cultural constructed

(2) Religious experiences transcend culture

(3) culturally constructed experi9ence can't transcend culture unless people are experiencing an objective reality.

(4) Therefor, since the experiences are the same there must be an objective reality that is being experienced

(5) the content of the experience is about the divine...

Evidence?

You've stated that people fall back on a divine explanation because they can't explain their experiences, but nowhere have you shown that the experience is "about the divine" rather than merely being attributed to the divine.

... therefore, the reality experienced the divine.

There is a difference between "the divine" and "God". You know this, since you admitted in a previous thread that your argument couldn't provide evidence for the entity most people mean when they use the term "God", only for the version that is considered by most modern theologists. So you are reposting an argument that was criticised elsewhere without modifying it to overcome the criticisms. That's dishonest.

[metacrock]

Evidence?

You've stated that people fall back on a divine explanation because they can't explain their experiences, but nowhere have you shown that the experience is "about the divine" rather than merely being attributed to the divine.

Yes I have. It's within the structure of the expero9ences themselves. The people have them most often identify them as experiences of God. There are two basic types of expero9emnce, the undifferentiated unity, and sense of the numinous. The former is a sense of all is one, that includes understanding of all things. There people to tend to feel at on with God. the latter is an overwhelming sense of God's love.

There is a difference between "the divine" and "God"

sure there is. It would make no0 sense to talk about disembodied sense of divinity without an object that is divine.

You know this, since you admitted in a previous thread that your argument couldn't provide evidence for the entity most people mean when they use the term "God", only for the version that is considered by most modern theologists. So you are reposting an argument that was criticised elsewhere without modifying it to overcome the criticisms. That's dishonest.

I guess you misundersto0od. I said we can't PROVE God exists. We certainly have evidence of since belief in God is warranted and I have said that. that's my standard line that my arguments aren't meant to prove God exists but to show that belief is rationally warranted.

[Tassman]

I guess you misundersto0od. I said we can't PROVE God exists. We certainly have evidence of since belief in God is warranted and I have said that. that's my standard line that my arguments aren't meant to prove God exists but to show that belief is rationally warranted.

Indeed you can’t prove that deities exist. And there’s nothing rational in assuming that that an unproven immaterial deity did-it either. That's an Argument from Ignorance.

[metacrock]

Indeed you can’t prove that deities exist. And there’s nothing rational in assuming that that an unproven immaterial deity did-it either. That's an Argument from Ignorance.

I have put up three arguments so far proving belief is warranted you have not touched one, you don't even have an argument, you are lucky I'm even talking to you because you don't have a concept of fair argument. Belief is warranted there is no basis for disparaging belief or rejecting It.

In fact this thread is such an argument so your statement is beggingg the question

[Tassman]

I have put up three arguments so far proving belief is warranted you have not touched one, you don't even have an argument, you are lucky I'm even talking to you because you don't have a concept of fair argument. Belief is warranted there is no basis for disparaging belief or rejecting It.

In fact this thread is such an argument so your statement is beggingg the question

You ague, as does Plantinga, that belief in God is in fact justified, rational and warranted. But you ignore, as does Plantinga, that for this view to be rationally warranted, belief in God requires some sort of evidential considerations of his actual existence. There is none.

[metacrock]

You ague, as does Plantinga, that belief in God is in fact justified, rational and warranted. But you ignore, as does Plantinga, that for this view to be rationally warranted, belief in God requires some sort of evidential considerations of his actual existence. There is none.

can you say "question begging?" you are doing a fallacy called "begging the question." this is a God argument. the point of it is to justify belief God you answer it by saying we have to produce a reason to believe but I did. that's the thing you are arguing against. you are asserting the position you are defending to prove that position that['s called "circular reasoning:it's wrong''

you lose because your reasoning is bad. you are using the conclusion as the premise. logic should move from premise to conclusion.

my proof works God is true exhypothoai QED

[Roy]

Evidence?

You've stated that people fall back on a divine explanation because they can't explain their experiences, but nowhere have you shown that the experience is "about the divine" rather than merely being attributed to the divine.

Yes I have. It's within the structure of the expero9ences themselves. The people have them most often identify them as experiences of God.

Since that is attribution to the divine, and not "about the divine", you have not.

There is a difference between "the divine" and "God"... You know this, since you admitted in a previous thread that your argument couldn't provide evidence for the entity most people mean when they use the term "God", only for the version that is considered by most modern theologists. So you are reposting an argument that was criticised elsewhere without modifying it to overcome the criticisms. That's dishonest.

I guess you misundersto0od. I said we can't PROVE God exists. We certainly have evidence of since belief in God is warranted and I have said that. that's my standard line that my arguments aren't meant to prove God exists but to show that belief is rationally warranted.

That has no bearing on my objection - which suggests you are the one that has misunderstood.

You are using "God" in an unusual technical sense without indication, are as a result your statements are misleading.

[Roy]

you lose because your reasoning is bad. you are using the conclusion as the premise. logic should move from premise to conclusion.

my proof works God is true exhypothoai QED

Your "logic" is execrable.

Even if every part of your "logic" is correct, the most you can conclude is that God is the most likely explanation for the phenomena observed, and therefore tentative belief in God is warranted. This is not the same as "God is true". That last jump from "best explanation" to "truth" is unsupported.

[Truthseeker]

Mystical experiences are the same the world over. The differences come in where people try not explain them then they fall back upon religious doctrine and culture. The universal nature is a good argument for God.

(1) Religion is cultural constructed

(2) Religious experiences transcend culture

(3) culturally constructed experi9ence can't transcend culture unless people are experiencing an objective reality.

(4) Therefor, since the experiences are the same there must be an objective reality that is being experienced

(5) the content of the experience is about the divine therefore, the reality experienced the divine.

Here is an essay that explains how the studies work and makes arguments

I hope you will not object to this post.

If nothing is real, any statement concerning the universe is merely moot at most. It seems safe to say that our consciousness is real and whatever it is that we are experiencing is to some degree real indeed, though our awareness of whatever it is may be at least once removed (that is, we do not experience reality directly).

There is reality out there and we are real, it seems safe to assert, though we may not understand what Reality is. Also, God is real no matter what atheists say. It seems safe to say that they have to concede that it seems safe to assert that bit about reality, it's but a baby step to the assertion that God is real, whatever it may be. We have being that lasts appreciable amounts of time, so reality is at least benign for the most part. It seems a good idea to call reality God.