Universal nature of liberal experience

[metacrock]

[QUOTE=Roy;310626]Since that is attribution to the divine, and not "about the divine", you have not.That has no bearing on my objection - which suggests you are the one that has misunderstood./QUOTE]


those are two separate answers to your argument:

(1) content is about God

(2) people identify experiences being about God

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

no I'm using it in ways standard in theology as did Stace and Hood. I know Hood personally so I know we have similar views of God. Hood is the major researcher.

I am betting your understanding of the term is conditioned by atheist brain washing if that's true you know nothing about the term the average way atheists speak about God is total BS.

[metacrock]

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.

First of all I have repeatedly that I don't prove God exists. That warrant is all I claim to produce. Secondly that's enough and it's not merely tentative. Warrant justifies an initial commitment then life time of experiences justifies a life of commitment. Personal experience of God's presence is the only real reason for belief and it's why religion exists. the powerful reason.

These are heavy duty life changing experiences.

[metacrock]

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.

weather our experiences of reality or God are direct or mediated is a perennial question in theology and philosophy. most people who mystical experience feel they have preyed up the lid and seem inside reality and that it was more real than the reality we know. The only proof of that is that living by that assumption works to make lives better dramatically and across the board.

[Tassman]

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.

Yes exactly. Metarock's so-called "rational warrant is an Argument from Ignorance. We don't know "therefore God"

[Tassman]

First of all I have repeatedly that I don't prove God exists. That warrant is all I claim to produce. Secondly that's enough and it's not merely tentative. Warrant justifies an initial commitment then life time of experiences justifies a life of commitment. Personal experience of God's presence is the only real reason for belief and it's why religion exists. the powerful reason.

These are heavy duty life changing experiences.

Argument from Ignorance fallacies bolstered by personal testimony...this is all one gets from Christians and it’s not good enough.

[metacrock]

Yes exactly. Metarock's so-called "rational warrant is an Argument from Ignorance. We don't know "therefore God"

no that's stupid. No gap in knowledge that the argument turns on, The argumentum's on the production of positive knowledge and control offered by the M scaled and the other studies. I can't prove the issue because I can't give you my experiences But I don't need to prove it because I can warrant belief.

[metacrock]

Argument from Ignorance fallacies bolstered by personal testimony...this is all one gets from Christians and it’s not good enough.

where's the ignorance? your ignorance is glaring and you are totally resistant to learning,

[Roy]

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

those are two separate answers to your argument:

(1) content is about God

You have not established this.

(2) people identify experiences being about God

This is attribution.

You have not established that mystical experiences are "about the divine".

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

no I'm using it in ways standard in theology as did Stace and Hood.

Which is a technical sense. It is not the common meaning of the term. Ergo you are using 'God' in an unusual, technical sense. You are using 'God' in a way standard in theology, but not in the way it is used outside of theology. Therefore your arguments may not be understood correctly by non-thologists.

You are simultaneously disagreeing with me and confirming that I am correct.

I am betting your understanding of the term is conditioned by atheist brain washing

Then you've lost. It isn't. My understanding of the term is based on a wide variety of usages from a wide spectrum of believers.

if that's true you know nothing about the term the average way atheists speak about God is total BS.

Coming as it does from some-one who has effectively just announced 'I'm not using 'God' in a technical sense, I'm using it in a technical sense', that is highly ironic. There's nothing left but to wait to see if you will admit that the average way theists speak about God is also total BS, or whether you will supplement your attempt at erecting a straw man with hypocrisy as well.

[Roy]

my proof works God is true exhypothoai QED

First of all I have repeatedly that I don't prove God exists. That warrant is all I claim to produce.

You can claim that you don't prove God exists as often as you like, but when you then turn round and say "my proof works God is true" you're demonstrating to everyone that your claim is self-serving garbage, and that you are not worth listening to.

Personal experience of God's presence is the only real reason for belief and it's why religion exists.

So all your arguments about common mystical experience worldwide are not a real reason for belief. Yet you posted them anyway.

[Roy]

Yes exactly. Metarock's so-called "rational warrant is an Argument from Ignorance. We don't know "therefore God"

No, it's a little more than that. Unfortunately the parts of his argument that are more than that are the parts he hasn't supported, and his graps of logic is sufficiently poor that he doesn't recognise the deficiencies in his own argument.

[metacrock]

You have not established this.This is attribution.

yep, I wrote a book about it. I gave turee reasons

(1) content of they experiences (go read verities of religiou8s experience)

(2) people who have the experiences say it was bout God

(3) If not that would mean the issues surrounding language and use of the terms for God dealing with the M scale are totally nonsensical. But the fact the numbers stack up prove the m scale works it can't be nonsense.

You have not established that mystical experiences are "about the divine".

I didn't the studies but yes I did. I have established it because I documented that go read the OP.

[I am using the term God in ways used in modern theology]

Which is a technical sense that is not the usual meaning of the term.

(1) wrong, obviously wrong, since the majority of people who have the experience say its about God then I', going by their use.

(2) Since I am a theologian I know how to speak theologically

Ergo you are using 'God' in an unusual, technical sense. You are using 'God' in a way standard in theology, but not in the way it is used outside of theology. Therefore your arguments may not be understood correctly by non-thologists.

you don't have the slightest idea how I'm using it. why don't you show me from my book how I use it?

You are simultaneously disagreeing with me and confirming that I am correct.

that's double talk. I'll make it easy for you, you are wrong, you are ignorant, you don't know anything about theology and you don't know what you are talking about. I think that clears it up-.;

Then you've lost. It isn't. My understanding of the term is based on a wide variety of usages from a wide spectrum of believers.

except that doesn't include the way I use it or anything I know.

Coming as it does from some-one who has effectively just announced 'I'm not using 'God' in a technical sense, I'm using it in a technical sense', that is highly ironic.

where did I say that? I didn't you are interpreting it that way. Unless screwed up and unjust wrote it wrong. that's passible if so it's a mistake.

There's nothing left but to wait to see if you will admit that the average way theists speak about God is also total BS, or whether you will supplement your attempt at erecting a straw man with hypocrisy as well.

that's a contradiction in your little game playing. first you imply that Im wrong for using the term differently than most Christians. We are given to understand that makes me wrong. Then we learn that using it that way is very stupid. so what you are doming is demanding that I be stupid if I'm not stupid to please you then I'm, somehow dishonest.

which is it Sherlock?

[metacrock]

You can claim that you don't prove God exists as often as you like, but when you then turn round and say "my proof works God is true" you're demonstrating to everyone that your claim is self-serving garbage, and that you are not worth listening to.So all your arguments about common mystical experience worldwide are not a real reason for belief. Yet you posted them anyway.

so you figu8re out the distinction between warrant and proof? you can't see a difference in stating a personal conviction and claiming to prove that conviction?

[metacrock]

No, it's a little more than that. Unfortunately the parts of his argument that are more than that are the parts he hasn't supported, and his graps of logic is sufficiently poor that he doesn't recognise the deficiencies in his own argument.

I have 200 empirical studies from academic journals and the support of the top researcher in the world on mystical experience. That should be plenty of support.

The stuff about Warrant is from Stephan Tullman the great expert on the subject and a major logician of the 20th century. That is way over your knowledge evel

Read this article: on Warrant

[Truthseeker]

It didn't occur to me until today that physics has something similar to "warrant" in at least one way. Science does not establish its conclusions ("laws", "principles") with total certainty--make that "never does"--but it calculates (at least in physics) the probabilities of its hypotheses being correct.

Probability of hypothesis is analogous to warrant to believe, right?

[metacrock]

It didn't occur to me until today that physics has something similar to "warrant" in at least one way. Science does not establish its conclusions ("laws", "principles") with total certainty--make that "never does"--but it calculates (at least in physics) the probabilities of its hypotheses being correct.

Probability of hypothesis is analogous to warrant to believe, right?

good point. thanks

warrant is just the thing that justifies a conclusion. You don't have to have absolute proof to reach a conclusion.