For Metacrock: Mystical experiences come from God?

[shunyadragon]

fishful thinking is slippery.

[shunyadragon]

what do you think Why would a false belief be rationally warranted?

. . .because there are so many different beliefs that are rationally warranted, and all cannot be true.

can something that that is rationally warranted turn out to be wrong latter, of course. in fact things we think are absolute facts can turn out to be wrong. That's not an argument for disbelief.

Well, rationally warranted beliefs can be wrong.

While something is a rational warrant it's worth believing because it's warranted.

Very, very circular, and can be used to justify any belief or nonbelief.

Who knows what the future, holds. you can't based your belief system on the possibility that it might one day be disproved, because anything could be.

true

[Kane]

what do you think Why would a false belief be rationally warranted?

Well, it wouldn't. You would only know it is not rational in retrospect. For example, given the vague notions of the earth set out in sacred texts, and the limited exploration of the globe 800 - 1000 years ago, it was rationally warranted to believe the earth was flat. Until it was discovered that that isn't flat, nobody would really be considered irrational for thinking it was. It turns out that a false belief was rationally warranted.

So, what assures you that your rationally warranted belief in God, and specifically the God of Christianity, is true beyond doubt? Is rationally warranted with no room for falsity?

can something that that is rationally warranted turn out to be wrong latter, of cousre. in fact things we think are absolute facts can tur out to be wrong. That's not an argument for disbelief.

You're right that it's not an argument for disbelief. It's also not a sure premise for belief.

While something is a rational warrant it's worth believing because it's warranted. Who knows what the future, holds. you can't based your bleief system on the possibility that it might one day be disproved, becasue anything could be.

Okay, so what are you assuming first in order to justify your epistemic catch-phrase "rational warrant"? If you can't base your beliefs on the possibility that they may turn out to be wrong, what are you assuming in order to believe anything in the first place?

[Metacrock]

Well, it wouldn't. You would only know it is not rational in retrospect. For example, given the vague notions of the earth set out in sacred texts, and the limited exploration of the globe 800 - 1000 years ago, it was rationally warranted to believe the earth was flat. Until it was discovered that that isn't flat, nobody would really be considered irrational for thinking it was. It turns out that a false belief was rationally warranted.

You are treating the concept of ratinoal warrant one minute like its' absolute proof and the next minute like means believe something with no basis. Rational warrant means "a good reason to believe something." Rational part is a good reason
the term warrant means "logical permission." So what it's saying is we have logical permission to believe something that isn ot absolute proof if we have good reason to believe it.

Good reason to believe something stands until it's no longer good reason. But that's what we expect from any beliefs. We expect that all beliefs are to be believed until such a time as they are overturned. Why should we worry about that? that's out of our site. If you sit around waiting for absolute proof you will never make a move.

So, what assures you that your rationally warranted belief in God, and specifically the God of Christianity, is true beyond doubt? Is rationally warranted with no room for falsity?

200 empirical studies remarkable. Anything that has 200 studies backing it up can be assume pretty well proved. So that proves the practical and sufficient nature of bleief as transformative. The connecting links to turn transformational experience into God argument are the co determinate and the epistemic criteria.

The latter turns upon the epistemological fallacy or the empiricists dilemma. That is absolute. Nothing is every going to over turn that.

You're right that it's not an argument for disbelief. It's also not a sure premise for belief

O yea it sure is. It's as sure as the cogito.

Okay, so what are you assuming first in order to justify your epistemic catch-phrase "rational warrant"? If you can't base your beliefs on the possibility that they may turn out to be wrong, what are you assuming in order to believe anything in the first place?

You base anything on that. no bleief is ever based upon that possibility.


This epistemic thing, what I just said, the criteria for epistemic judgment, as long as you can't get outside your own head to check your perception that criteria is solid. That will never happen. To do that you would have to be able to say "I am" and know it for a fact without saying "I think, therefore..."

another way to look at it is you would have to be able to know it's hot in the room for the other guy without ever having to ask "aer you hot too."
As long as we have to consult other minds the criteria is in effect. The studies show the experiences fit the criteria and as long as they do the argument stands.

[Metacrock]

. . .because there are so many different beliefs that are rationally warranted, and all cannot be true.

we don't have to validate all the fiddly bits of every theology. The studies show mystical experience is the same around the world. The observations pulled by the mystics fit all the various faiths. We can go by those.

Well, rationally warranted beliefs can be wrong.

So what? absolute proof can be wrong. Everything can be wrong. We could be butterflies dreaming we are men. If you sit around waiting for absolute proof you will never act.

Very, very circular, and can be used to justify any belief or nonbelief.

No that is totally wrong. that shows you don't understand the concept. anything believed can be changed over time. science used to believe in either it was a fact. It was a scientific fact. No one foresaw Michelson and Morley would disprove it. you can't ditch beliefs based upon the mere possibility that some day they will be overturned.

that is not circular. there's nothing circular about it. you don't know what circular means.
I've corrected you on this a number of times, why can't you learn? This is something that just annoys me about atheists they don't know logic and refuse to learn they refuse to change.

here is the statement you are calling circular.

While something is a rational warrant it's worth believing because it's warranted.

where do you see the premise resigning on the conclusion? you say "very very circular" but the truth is don't know what circular is.

there's even worse I say

Who knows what the future, holds. you can't based your belief system on the possibility that it might one day be disproved, because anything could be.

you say

true

what are you calling true? what you just agreed with is nothing more than a different way of saying what you just daubed "very very circular." You apparently don't even under what agree with.

[Kane]

You are treating the concept of ratinoal warrant one minute like its' absolute proof and the next minute like means believe something with no basis. Rational warrant means "a good reason to believe something." Rational part is a good reason
the term warrant means "logical permission." So what it's saying is we have logical permission to believe something that isn ot absolute proof if we have good reason to believe it.

Good reason to believe something stands until it's no longer good reason. But that's what we expect from any beliefs. We expect that all beliefs are to be believed until such a time as they are overturned. Why should we worry about that? that's out of our site. If you sit around waiting for absolute proof you will never make a move.

So your position puts us no further than the criticisms I offered. You have essentially affirmed what I've stated.

200 empirical studies remarkable. Anything that has 200 studies backing it up can be assume pretty well proved. So that proves the practical and sufficient nature of bleief as transformative. The connecting links to turn transformational experience into God argument are the co determinate and the epistemic criteria.

The latter turns upon the epistemological fallacy or the empiricists dilemma. That is absolute. Nothing is every going to over turn that.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are referring to here.

O yea it sure is. It's as sure as the cogito.

You know, just from a practical standpoint, there's less risk involved in disbelieving mega-claims than in believing them. Hence your position of "rational warrant", even if it is right, has not calculated the risk of believing competing mega-claims. Hence the reason why I have to agree with another commenter that rational warrant gives no rational assurance of correctness between contradictory claims.

You base anything on that. no bleief is ever based upon that possibility.

This epistemic thing, what I just said, the criteria for epistemic judgment, as long as you can't get outside your own head to check your perception that criteria is solid. That will never happen. To do that you would have to be able to say "I am" and know it for a fact without saying "I think, therefore..."

another way to look at it is you would have to be able to know it's hot in the room for the other guy without ever having to ask "aer you hot too."
As long as we have to consult other minds the criteria is in effect. The studies show the experiences fit the criteria and as long as they do the argument stands.

I'm really not following you here. Can you please rephrase your thoughts?

[shunyadragon]

we don't have to validate all the fiddly bits of every theology. The studies show mystical experience is the same around the world. The observations pulled by the mystics fit all the various faiths. We can go by those.

All this says is that mystical experiences are common to all humanity. I says nothing about demonstrating what the source is for these experiences.

Actually this does more to justify the Baha'i vie concerning the diversity and universality of mystical experiences. I still does nothing to demonstrate the source or reason.

[Metacrock]

So your position puts us no further than the criticisms I offered. You have essentially affirmed what I've stated.

sorry. I don't want to offend because I like you. I don't think of you as a stupid person but your criticisms are not what I would expect from someone I have grown to admire as a sharp person. They are basically saying "couldn't be wrong therefore it's a risk to believe it." we can say that about anything. rational warrant as a decision making process is approved by most logical today that' why Toulmin is a big named guy.

rational warrant means "there's a good reason to believe it." you are saying "a good reason isn't good enough." Why is it a good reason if it isn't good enough? see how that's just picking. you are picking at it because you have no where to go with it.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are referring to here.

you say that to this:


200 empirical studies remarkable. Anything that has 200 studies backing it up can be assume pretty well proved. So that proves the practical and sufficient nature of bleief as transformative. The connecting links to turn transformational experience into God argument are the co determinate and the epistemic criteria.

The latter turns upon the epistemological fallacy or the empiricists dilemma. That is absolute. Nothing is every going to over turn that.


It means an example of what I call rational warrant is is amazingly strong. s' strong enough as a proof to be called "absolute" in any other situation. It is backed by 200 studies it only took 3 studies to prove air bags worked.

Now that part about epistemological fallacy means that the link between the experience and attribution to god is partly based upon the epistemological concept of the empiricist dilemma. That's why we must make a judgment. WE can't get out side our own heads and make sure our perceptions work. That means we have to make a judgment. So we develop criteria to make the judgment.


here' the key why is this is hard for you guys to keep in your heads?

THE STUDIES PROVE THE EXPERIENCES FIT THE CRITERIA THAT'S HOW WE KNOW WE CAN TRUST THEM. that IS WHAT MAKES THE LINK FROM THE STUDIES TO THE PROOF.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE OVERTURNED. BECAUSE IT TURNS UPON EPISTEMOLOGY

that means my ratioanl warrant rock solid and it wont ever be disproved.

You know, just from a practical standpoint, there's less risk involved in disbelieving mega-claims than in believing them.

I have not made any mega claims. the little 3% o nobodies know nothings called atheists always try to take upon themselves the mantle of human knowledge.YOU ARE NOT THE ORBITERS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE!

what I am claiming is claimed by m90% of all humans who ever lived on earth and millions of mystics around the world in all times and cultures. Atheists are making the mega claim. The wired avaunt guard idea is that this 3% that's largely illiterate is trust van guard of human knowledge when most of them are stupid they have never heard of Stephen Toulmin.


This rational warrant stuff if big in logician circles look it up!

Hence your position of "rational warrant", even if it is right, has not calculated the risk of believing competing mega-claims. Hence the reason why I have to agree with another commenter that rational warrant gives no rational assurance of correctness between contradictory claims.

what risk? what the hell risk? you little ego might bused H no that that! that's no risk! how dumb can you get

we are talking about life and death man get real! don't' play these little game you don't' understand. you try to play rational thinker when you don't know major figures like Toulmin.


I was a college debater. how many times do I have to tell you that? Obviously you were not because you don't know argument. using rational warrant is obviously a smart move becuase it' less to prove. That cannot be used agaisnt it. you cannot make the argument that if I have less to prove then it's less well proved. that's silly. Its' well proved. I could argue that it is acute proof. why do that when hardener to pull when I need to pull is that it's rational to believe?

that means you have the burden of proof. YUP it changes. you now have becasue it's your move you must prove that its' not rational.

It makes much more sense from a debate stand point to shift the burden of proof than to strap on this huge burden that's histically haard to pull that atheist not going to accept no matter how wells rued or proved it is anyway.

atheists have pulled the wool over the eyes of society long enough. atheism does not mean lack of belief, it means "I refuse to accdept the proof no matter how good it is."

[robertb]

No that's wrong. I've explained why it's wrong. If you had even tried to understand the two argument I made above you would know why

why do we even have the idea of God? where did it come from? I prove it comes from these experiences. I show an historical association going to before humans has a notion of god at all. The reason we are even talking about something called "God" is because people have these experiences. That's the other half of the co-determinate.

IF you bothered to read the argument you would know. You didn't read it because you never had an intention of answering it anyway.

you know you can't. just another case of atheists can't answer the argument.

But your arguments are basically meaningless drivel until such a time as you can demonstrate the actual existence of the cause you are arguing for.

Until that time, it will always be more probable, to an infinite degree, that such experiences are the result of certain chemical actions within the brain caused by various natural factors, then it is that an unsubstantiated god caused them.

Meta, it really is that simple.

why don't you try thinking for a change. go read the arguments that you refuse to read (right up there) and you will see what you missed.

I haven't missed anything. I think, however, that you may have done so.

[Metacrock]

to Robertb

Originally posted by Metacrock

No that's wrong. I've explained why it's wrong. If you had even tried to understand the two argument I made above you would know why

why do we even have the idea of God? where did it come from? I prove it comes from these experiences. I show an historical association going to before humans has a notion of god at all. The reason we are even talking about something called "God" is because people have these experiences. That's the other half of the co-determinate.

IF you bothered to read the argument you would know. You didn't read it because you never had an intention of answering it anyway.

you know you can't. just another case of atheists can't answer the argument.

But your arguments are basically meaningless drivel until such a time as you can demonstrate the actual existence of the cause you are arguing for.

At this point you are out of any sort of credibility. you have demonstrated you can't handle ordinary logic. I've demonstrated the validity of my views any number of ways. the major thing you don't answer my arguments. calling them names is not argument. that's a fallacy. anyone can say "dis tupid." prove ti genius! deal with the logic, you haven not done so>

I site major soruce by a major thinker who is highly respected even among secular philosophers (Alston) and I use him and he agrees with me. I also site Carl Franks Davis as supported. you have no response at all.

answer the logic bozo you have not. two arguments:

co determinate

epistemic judgment

try to say more than name calling.

[Kane]

sorry. I don't want to offend because I like you. I don't think of you as a stupid person but your criticisms are not what I would expect from someone I have grown to admire as a sharp person. They are basically saying "couldn't be wrong therefore it's a risk to believe it." we can say that about anything.

You are not offending me, Meta. As I've told you before, I really don't have a difficult time distinguishing between your passion and your assertiveness. Also, thank you for your compliment, but being "sharp" doesn't necessarily mean I will understand, appreciate, or even agree with whatever is put out. Though I do understand a fair deal, I also don't understand a fair deal, too. Perhaps this is one of those things I don't understand; I don't know. In any case, I'm going to press on.

My critique (rather than "criticisms") has so far been to suggest that if rational warrant applies only to those beliefs that are true, then we are left with competing belief claims that contradict each other and all have rational warrant to assert their particular 'brand' of belief, as it were. The corollary, of course, being that those beliefs that are false have no rational warrant. However, until those beliefs are shown to be false, all people fully convinced of their beliefs derive their rational warrant from an already assumed belief-set. Ergo, they can only know their beliefs to be false in retrospect vis-à-vis new rational warrant that justifies new beliefs.

rational warrant as a decision making process is approved by most logical today that' why Toulmin is a big named guy.

Yes, of course it's approved: there's no reason not to believe a thing if the data you have collected on a thing correlates with an already assumed proposition. How many people who claim rational warrant for their beliefs didn't already have those beliefs when they set out to find the rational warrant for them? As I see it so far, the notion of "rational warrant" is simply a sophisticated form of question begging: a person believes X, so that person involves his/herself in data that affirms X, therefore X is rationally warranted (i.e., more than likely true). For an example of this, referrence the droning nag-sessions creationists and evolutionists expend all their mental energy on.

rational warrant means "there's a good reason to believe it." you are saying "a good reason isn't good enough." Why is it a good reason if it isn't good enough? see how that's just picking. you are picking at it because you have no where to go with it.

No, Metacrock. I'm saying that the notion of "rational warrant" gets us no further in confirming anything to be true if all it does is give reasonable permission to believe this-that-or-the-other belief. To borrow from the great G.K. Chesterton, this notion of rational warrant "is simply a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative" (Heretics, 1905).

Now that part about epistemological fallacy means that the link between the experience and attribution to god is partly based upon the epistemological concept of the empiricist dilemma. That's why we must make a judgment. WE can't get out side our own heads and make sure our perceptions work. That means we have to make a judgment. So we develop criteria to make the judgment.

I accept that we cannot get outside of our own heads and therefore have to make judgments. But this goes a lot further to proving my point than yours, it seems to me. For if rational warrant is used to describe the probable veracity of a belief, yet we are shackled to the same probability of being wrong, too, then whatever judgments we make, even competing judgments, are of equal validity so long as they have "rational warrant" appended to them. I see that as a problem, which is why I don't see the notion of rational warrant advancing the case for God at all.


here' the key why is this is hard for you guys to keep in your heads?

THE STUDIES PROVE THE EXPERIENCES FIT THE CRITERIA THAT'S HOW WE KNOW WE CAN TRUST THEM. that IS WHAT MAKES THE LINK FROM THE STUDIES TO THE PROOF.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE OVERTURNED. BECAUSE IT TURNS UPON EPISTEMOLOGY

Anything knowable "turns upon epistemology". That is not in question. What is in question, however, is that setting out a criteria and selecting subjective experiences that match that criteria does not even begin to hint at something alien to the person having the subjective experiences. We already know from neuroscience that experiences can be induced simply by isolating and stimulating certain regions of the brain. We have known for quite some time that people's emotions can stir them to euphoric states which they later interpret as "spiritual" and use to suggest that reality of the divine.

I'm not saying you are wrong, or that the empirical studies you cite don't make a plausible case for rationally believing in the divine. I'm saying that correlation is not causality. Ergo, the notion of rational warrant as applied to beliefs is not as cut-and-dry as you may hope it to be.

I have not made any mega claims. the little 3% o nobodies know nothings called atheists always try to take upon themselves the mantle of human knowledge.YOU ARE NOT THE ORBITERS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE!

Please don't resort to ad hominems. There is so much potential here to have a really interesting discussion that there really is no need to lob insults at others. I don't consider myself a "nobody" because I'm an atheist. I consider myself a somebody despite my atheism.

And, yes, you are right: atheists are not the arbiters of human knowledge. We, like you and all the other people in the world, are simply participants in the pursuit of knowledge.

what I am claiming is claimed by m90% of all humans who ever lived on earth and millions of mystics around the world in all times and cultures. Atheists are making the mega claim. The wired avaunt guard idea is that this 3% that's largely illiterate is trust van guard of human knowledge when most of them are stupid they have never heard of Stephen Toulmin.

Having never heard of a certain academic does not make a person stupid, no matter their metaphysic on life. Have you heard of Wing-Tsit Chan? He is a Chinese philosopher, and translated one of the most authoritative texts on Chinese philosophy for the 20th century. And yet, for those people who haven't heard of him, they are not stupid, are they?

This rational warrant stuff if big in logician circles look it up!

I have. And I've already spelled out my initial concerns with it.

what risk? what the hell risk? you little ego might bused H no that that! that's no risk! how dumb can you get

we are talking about life and death man get real! don't' play these little game you don't' understand. you try to play rational thinker when you don't know major figures like Toulmin.

I'm going to pass by this section, if you don't mind. I don't think anything useful can come of this section in our exchange.

I was a college debater. how many times do I have to tell you that? Obviously you were not because you don't know argument. using rational warrant is obviously a smart move becuase it' less to prove. That cannot be used agaisnt it. you cannot make the argument that if I have less to prove then it's less well proved. that's silly. Its' well proved. I could argue that it is acute proof. why do that when hardener to pull when I need to pull is that it's rational to believe?

It's true: I was not a college debater. Well, not a formal debater, that is. Why? Because I couldn't be bothered. I had other things I wanted to do then.

Nevertheless, stating that rational warrant is a "smart move" because "it's [sic] less to prove", comes across very much like you are using rational warrant to take the easy way out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the path of least resistance isn't always the best path, is it?

that means you have the burden of proof. YUP it changes. you now have becasue it's your move you must prove that its' not rational.

It makes much more sense from a debate stand point to shift the burden of proof than to strap on this huge burden that's histically haard to pull that atheist not going to accept no matter how wells rued or proved it is anyway.

atheists have pulled the wool over the eyes of society long enough. atheism does not mean lack of belief, it means "I refuse to accdept the proof no matter how good it is."

I only have the burden of proof if you can show that the correlations between subjective experience of the divine are, in fact, caused by the divine. If you can show that correlation means causality, in this case, then I will shoulder the burden. For now, however, I think the burden is still on the floor waiting for someone to pick it up, and I'm already done exercising for today.

[Metacrock]

discussion with Christopher 31

Originally posted by Metacrock

sorry. I don't want to offend because I like you. I don't think of you as a stupid person but your criticisms are not what I would expect from someone I have grown to admire as a sharp person. They are basically saying "couldn't be wrong therefore it's a risk to believe it." we can say that about anything.

You are not offending me, Meta. As I've told you before, I really don't have a difficult time distinguishing between your passion and your assertiveness.

thanks. I am losing my patience, but not with you. You are just the one I'm taking it out on. sorry.;-)

Also, thank you for your compliment, but being "sharp" doesn't necessarily mean I will understand, appreciate, or even agree with whatever is put out. Though I do understand a fair deal, I also don't understand a fair deal, too. Perhaps this is one of those things I don't understand; I don't know. In any case, I'm going to press on.

I think you understand better than some people, and I'm not always clear.

My critique (rather than "criticisms") has so far been to suggest that if rational warrant applies only to those beliefs that are true, then we are left with competing belief claims that contradict each other and all have rational warrant to assert their particular 'brand' of belief, as it were.

Rational warrant is a decision making paradigm like prima facie, it's not fool proof form of proof. We still have a debate with two side and different sets of evidence the whole nine yards. Canadians do have 10 yard first downs right?

The corollary, of course, being that those beliefs that are false have no rational warrant. However, until those beliefs are shown to be false, all people fully convinced of their beliefs derive their rational warrant from an already assumed belief-set. Ergo, they can only know their beliefs to be false in retrospect vis-à-vis new rational warrant that justifies new beliefs.

rational warrant is a means of justification for placing confidence hypothesis that is only partially proved. So there does still have to be proof. Yet I believe I met that burden in spades. 200 empirical studies and criteria foe epistemic judgment is ample proof.



Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

rational warrant as a decision making process is approved by most logical today that' why Toulmin is a big named guy.

Yes, of course it's approved: there's no reason not to believe a thing if the data you have collected on a thing correlates with an already assumed proposition. How many people who claim rational warrant for their beliefs didn't already have those beliefs when they set out to find the rational warrant for them? As I see it so far, the notion of "rational warrant" is simply a sophisticated form of question begging: a person believes X, so that person involves his/herself in data that affirms X, therefore X is rationally warranted (i.e., more than likely true). For an example of this, referrence the droning nag-sessions creationists and evolutionists expend all their mental energy on.

that's totally misusing the concept of a decision making paradigm. first of all, you miscue the concept of argument. you seem to think that argument is a from of scientific experiment where you start not knowing the conclusion you do it and see how it goes then from belief base upon the result. that is not argument. Arguments are not question begging just becuase you know wast you argue for. that is extremely foolish and fallacious. If that were the case debate would be impossible. every singe debate team in the world knows it argues for before it begins. every lawyers know what' he's defending every statesman knows what his bill proposes.

That is not question begging. It's only begging the question if the premises rests on the conclusion you cannot show that mine does because it doesn't. Knowing what you argue for is not the same thing as premise resting on conclusion.



Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

rational warrant means "there's a good reason to believe it." you are saying "a good reason isn't good enough." Why is it a good reason if it isn't good enough? see how that's just picking. you are picking at it because you have no where to go with it.

No, Metacrock. I'm saying that the notion of "rational warrant" gets us no further in confirming anything to be true if all it does is give reasonable permission to believe this-that-or-the-other belief. To borrow from the great G.K. Chesterton, this notion of rational warrant "is simply a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative" (Heretics, 1905).

It's not the proof. If you think the rational warrant is the thing that proves the case then your understanding is amazingly fallacious. I don't think you understand argumentation. Remember I said it's logical persimmon that doesn't mean proof. It's not proof. What what we have instead of proof. So I don't have to say "this proves it." I can say "it's rational to bleieve it" and that's all I have to show. that's all it does. it's a mark of the bar is. the method of getting us there is still the same.

what you keep overlooking (I'm sure this is a ploy to distract attention) is that my proofs are immense. I have really fine proof. You clearly haven't been in any real debates because this is a super well documented very strong case. I wrote the X ray cas eon the product safety topic that had 90% wins. This is as good.


If I was in college debate today and we had religion topic this would be my case. I would take it into any round against Harvard or Northwestern and not worry for a minute.


Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

Now that part about epistemological fallacy means that the link between the experience and attribution to god is partly based upon the epistemological concept of the empiricist dilemma. That's why we must make a judgment. WE can't get out side our own heads and make sure our perceptions work. That means we have to make a judgment. So we develop criteria to make the judgment.

I accept that we cannot get outside of our own heads and therefore have to make judgments.

then you basically concede the argument.

But this goes a lot further to proving my point than yours, it seems to me. For if rational warrant is used to describe the probable veracity of a belief, yet we are shackled to the same probability of being wrong, too, then whatever judgments we make, even competing judgments, are of equal validity so long as they have "rational warrant" appended to them. I see that as a problem, which is why I don't see the notion of rational warrant advancing the case for God at all.

that's totally fallacious. If you can't access probability then there's no basis for a probable argument that still doesn't mean everything is the same. The experiences I talk about fit the criteria that we use for determining reality. there's no way you can make go away or twist to be unimportant or un warranting just because it's not what you want or because you can imagine an alternative. don't forget you have not one single counter study. you have no evidence at all to back up any kind of alternative.


here' the key why is this is hard for you guys to keep in your heads?

Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

THE STUDIES PROVE THE EXPERIENCES FIT THE CRITERIA THAT'S HOW WE KNOW WE CAN TRUST THEM. that IS WHAT MAKES THE LINK FROM THE STUDIES TO THE PROOF.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE OVERTURNED. BECAUSE IT TURNS UPON EPISTEMOLOGY

Anything knowable "turns upon epistemology". That is not in question. What is in question, however, is that setting out a criteria and selecting subjective experiences that match that criteria does not even begin to hint at something alien to the person having the subjective experiences.

we don't have to set out a criteria we have one and we use it. Its' natural, it's the way our brains work. tis' not a proposal it's the way we understand what's real. The Newberg evidence in Why God wont Go away backs that up. But I thought of it before that. It's in every major epistemological thinker. It's used Hume, and used by his opponent Reid.

anytime you see something out of the ordinary you say "did you see that" you are demonstrating that the mind does work along the times of this criteria. I used to bait atheists into a position where they do it for me. Talk about "how do we know we exist" they start going "O that's stupid, I don't have to prove I exist, I just go my perceptions if it works out then that's all I need." Well yea, that's part of the criteria.

(1) We have to make a judgment because you have no absolute proof (can't get outside our own heads).

(2) We make the judgment according to what works.

(3) we know what works by the criteria:

a) regular: every time I do x I get y
b) consistent: it's always y and never q or p
c) shared: "did you see that?" "is it hot in here to you too?"
d) navigation: when I see a car coming I get out of the street, I am still alive so keep doing it. I don't play on the freeway becasue those who don't get out of the way don't get up. maybe in their minds they are having a wonderful time but I am not going to take the chance.

We already know from neuroscience that experiences can be induced simply by isolating and stimulating certain regions of the brain.

we not in isolation. you can't on the one hand admit that we are stuck with judgment because we get outside our minds, then close off the only means we have of making judgmental and then pretend you still have a rational position. It's either go by experience or forget reality.

atheists are hypocrites an recursion is stupid. science is not disproving experience. experience is all we have. A scientist reading data is experiencing data. He's going by experience as much a saint having mystical experience. Experiencing the world is the only way we know anything.

We have known for quite some time that people's emotions can stir them to euphoric states which they later interpret as "spiritual" and use to suggest that reality of the divine.

You are making a guilt by association argument. If you follow the logic of that argument you have to be a solipsist. You are closing off the only avenue to making epistemic judgment.

I'm not saying you are wrong, or that the empirical studies you cite don't make a plausible case for rationally believing in the divine. I'm saying that correlation is not causality. Ergo, the notion of rational warrant as applied to beliefs is not as cut-and-dry as you may hope it to be.

that's where the rational warrant comes in. Becuase it's irrelevant weather causality or not. we should assume it is because we warranted to assume it and we have no other choice. What Hume actually proved was that we have no observation of causality. the only way we can ever obtain causality is to assume it based upon a strong correlation. Even the assumption of mechanism is actually correlation.




Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

I have not made any mega claims. the little 3% o nobodies know nothings called atheists always try to take upon themselves the mantle of human knowledge.YOU ARE NOT THE ORBITERS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE!

Please don't resort to ad hominems. There is so much potential here to have a really interesting discussion that there really is no need to lob insults at others. I don't consider myself a "nobody" because I'm an atheist. I consider myself a somebody despite my atheism.

show me why bleief in God is a mega claim when 90% of humanity accepted it? why isn't the 3% the mega claim? It's part of who we are as a species, it's hard wired we even have innate ideas about it. There's nothing wired or out of the ordinary about it. it's not a mega claim in anyway. Its' the norm!

And, yes, you are right: atheists are not the arbiters of human knowledge. We, like you and all the other people in the world, are simply participants in the pursuit of knowledge.

then don't try to tell me what is a mega claim.

Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

what I am claiming is claimed by m90% of all humans who ever lived on earth and millions of mystics around the world in all times and cultures. Atheists are making the mega claim. The wired avaunt guard idea is that this 3% that's largely illiterate is trust van guard of human knowledge when most of them are stupid they have never heard of Stephen Toulmin.

Having never heard of a certain academic does not make a person stupid, no matter their metaphysic on life.

those guys (PIxie and co) are trying to claim that I invented rational warrant then use that to mock and ridicule the idea by guilt by association based upon dislike for me. They are ignoring whose idea it is. It does behoove someone to withhold criticism if you don't know the area or you don't know the major figures or ideas in an area. To just flap their gums and insist that it's stupid becuase they don't know anything about it is the height of ignorance. You are not doing this except in a mild way. They are the one's I'm really shouting at.

Have you heard of Wing-Tsit Chan? He is a Chinese philosopher, and translated one of the most authoritative texts on Chinese philosophy for the 20th century. And yet, for those people who haven't heard of him, they are not stupid, are they?

I have heard of him actually. The thing is I don't think they were stupid, I said they are certainly making themselves appear that way by mocking and ridiculing ideas and not knowing where those ideas are from. I told them several times and they ignore me.



Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

This rational warrant stuff if big in logician circles look it up!

I have. And I've already spelled out my initial concerns with it.

you don't seem to understand it fully, no offense.

Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

what risk? what the hell risk? you little ego might bused H no that that! that's no risk! how dumb can you get

we are talking about life and death man get real! don't' play these little game you don't' understand. you try to play rational thinker when you don't know major figures like Toulmin.

I'm going to pass by this section, if you don't mind. I don't think anything useful can come of this section in our exchange.

wait a minute now. You advanced the argument that there's risk in accept RW as deicsion paradigm. what risk? you have to tell what risk you meant? I am saying the risk is in not using it because then you miss the goodies you need such as navigation in life (transfomative power) and you are in danger of not using a rational paradigm, not you personally the editorial "you."

I'm not just screaming at you that's passion. you know!

Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

I was a college debater. how many times do I have to tell you that? Obviously you were not because you don't know argument. using rational warrant is obviously a smart move becuase it' less to prove. That cannot be used agaisnt it. you cannot make the argument that if I have less to prove then it's less well proved. that's silly. Its' well proved. I could argue that it is acute proof. why do that when hardener to pull when I need to pull is that it's rational to believe?

It's true: I was not a college debater. Well, not a formal debater, that is. Why? Because I couldn't be bothered. I had other things I wanted to do then.

I don't mean wave that about some little stupid badge. I just think it gave an idea of the nature of argument and certain insight into what makes an argument. I didn't win NDT or anything. So I must not one of the good ones. (NDT= National championship)

Nevertheless, stating that rational warrant is a "smart move" because "it's [sic] less to prove", comes across very much like you are using rational warrant to take the easy way out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the path of least resistance isn't always the best path, is it?

there's no reason why one should not one's knowledge of rhetoric and argumentation. We are doing argument. this process here is argumentation. All argument is based upon rhetorical strategy. Nothing wrong with being up front about it.

Jump to Post
Originally posted by Metacrock

that means you have the burden of proof. YUP it changes. you now have becasue it's your move you must prove that its' not rational.

It makes much more sense from a debate stand point to shift the burden of proof than to strap on this huge burden that's histically haard to pull that atheist not going to accept no matter how wells rued or proved it is anyway.

atheists have pulled the wool over the eyes of society long enough. atheism does not mean lack of belief, it means "I refuse to accdept the proof no matter how good it is."

I only have the burden of proof if you can show that the correlations between subjective experience of the divine are, in fact, caused by the divine.

NOPE! don't have to. all I have to show is that it's rationally warranted to construe it that way. If it meets a prima facie burden the burden shifts. Prima facie burden is estabilshed by superior evidence on face value. I have 200 studies and you have none I would say I meet the PF burden.

If you can show that correlation means causality, in this case, then I will shoulder the burden. For now, however, I think the burden is still on the floor waiting for someone to pick it up, and I'm already done exercising for today.

no see now you are trying to impose the former paradigm of Aristotelian absolute proof and logical compulsion but there's no reason why that should be the paradigm. I have totally overshadowing documentation and you have none.

don't forget I've shown the connecting link is an epistemological principle you already agreed to, the need for judgment.

come on don't carp now I have a real point here you know it.

[robertb]

to Robertb

Originally posted by Metacrock

No that's wrong. I've explained why it's wrong. If you had even tried to understand the two argument I made above you would know why

why do we even have the idea of God? where did it come from? I prove it comes from these experiences. I show an historical association going to before humans has a notion of god at all. The reason we are even talking about something called "God" is because people have these experiences. That's the other half of the co-determinate.

IF you bothered to read the argument you would know. You didn't read it because you never had an intention of answering it anyway.

you know you can't. just another case of atheists can't answer the argument.





At this point you are out of any sort of credibility. you have demonstrated you can't handle ordinary logic. I've demonstrated the validity of my views any number of ways. the major thing you don't answer my arguments. calling them names is not argument. that's a fallacy. anyone can say "dis tupid." prove ti genius! deal with the logic, you haven not done so>

I site major soruce by a major thinker who is highly respected even among secular philosophers (Alston) and I use him and he agrees with me. I also site Carl Franks Davis as supported. you have no response at all.

answer the logic bozo you have not. two arguments:

co determinate

epistemic judgment

try to say more than name calling.

I am sorry to say so, but at this point you are simply being a clown...

[Metacrock]

I am sorry to say so, but at this point you are simply being a clown...

you are simply being a shallow ridicule artist because that's all you have done. you have not made a single argument. you have not given a single fact. you don't e a single study. all you have done i characterized what you think of me by ridiculing my ideas with noting of any substance to say.

Nor have you dealt with any of my logic.

[robertb]

you are simply being a shallow ridicule artist because that's all you have done. you have not made a single argument. you have not given a single fact. you don't e a single study. all you have done i characterized what you think of me by ridiculing my ideas with noting of any substance to say.

Nor have you dealt with any of my logic.

I am amazed that you still cannot see the issue with your argument. Other posters have been kind enough to point it out to you.

Please, carefully go back through this thread and carefully read the responses that have been given.