Page 1 of 1

Meta vs Infinaite hope

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:02 am
by Metacrock
this is really being done on carm 1x1 board. I'm putting it here at the same time.

this is reserved for my 1AC

Re: Meta vs Infinaite hope

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:03 am
by Metacrock
Infintie Hope 1NC


Two questions are present in this topic:

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

For these questions, we must add a third:

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Contuning now...

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

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

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

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

How do we best determin what is real?

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

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

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

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

If that is what God is, and only if God is real, then all religon's belifes are false
since none of them currently line up with this objective statment about God.
Of course, if there is a religon that does, I am unaware of it, but I'd like to know
about them, because they would be closer to the truth of the matter, and maybe there
God can actualy be verifyed... but I'm not holding my breath.

Re: Meta vs Infinaite hope: Meta's 2AC

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:14 am
by Metacrock
2AC

His next speech will be his 2NC. that's his last constructive. this is my last constructive. the rebuttals.
Two questions are present in this topic:

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

For these questions, we must add a third:

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

That’s why the second part of the argument talks about criteria for epistemic judgment. That’s who we decided that we know our perceptions are real, because they meet those criteria.
The answer to this above question seems most essental to our ablity
to answer the two questions outlined above, and futher, any question
at all.
I think he has to challenge the criteria or he must accept my premise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) assumption about dreams is misconception:

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

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

(3) misconception about nature of mystical experience.

he to assume we can bring them on at will.

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

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


(b) charge about frame work is wrong

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=N6Rtrz ... &ct=result

Then he plays the second guess God game:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



"How do we best determin what is real?"

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

regular
consistent
inter subjective (which is where corroboration comes in)
navigation (which works to get us through life)
IH says:
"The answer to that question, for those who belive in God/Gods/gods/god seems
to be: "because I can feel it" I can feel love, yet I now KNOW it is nothing
more then a chemcial reaction."
He's trying to impose another logic upon my argument. I have never made "feeling" a criterion.
that's the imposition of a straw man argument.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

debate topic said nothing about defending religion. belief in God is warranted. do with it what you will. you go decide what faith to belong to that's another matter. ( I can make suggestions if you wish but not as a part of the debate).
IH:
"Of course, if there is a religon that does, I am unaware of it, but I'd like to know
about them, because they would be closer to the truth of the matter, and maybe there
God can actualy be verifyed... but I'm not holding my breath."
[/quote]

my model is (just to inform you of my habit) one reality behind many expressions. In other words the one true God behind all faiths. It's the cultural constructs through which expreinces of God must be filtered in order to talk about them that makes religions seem different. So it's the culture that makes the differences. the sameness is the reality of God. Jesus is co-extensive with that reality. that is what saves me from the horrible fate of being tagged with the evil "U" word.
that one reality is co-

read my essay on Salvation and other faiths.

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