Meta vs Fool2: arguemnt 2 Co-determinate

Metacrock vs All comers; other can also reserve. this is for 1x1 debate, please do not respond if you are not specifically demarcated as part of the debate.

Moderator: Metacrock

doxaws
Site Admin
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:07 am

Meta vs Fool2: arguemnt 2 Co-determinate

Post by doxaws » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:03 pm

Co-determinate: The co-determinate is like the Derridian trace, or like a fingerprint. It's the accompanying sign that is always found with the thing itself. In other words, like trailing the invisable man in the snow. You can't see the invisable man, but you can see his footprints, and wherever he is in the snow his prints will always follow.

We cannot produce direct observation of God, but we can find the "trace" or the co-determinate, the effects of God in the wrold.

The only question at that ponit is "How do we know this is the effect, or the accompanying sign of the divine? But that should be answere in the argument below. Here let us set out some general peramitors:

(1) The trace produced content with speicificually religious affects

(2)The affects led one to a renewed sense of divine relaity, are transformative of life goals and self actualization

(3) Cannot be accounted for by alteante cuasality or other means.

Argument (1)There are real affects from Mytical experince.

(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena.

(3)Since the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explaintions we should assume that they are genuine.

(4)Since mystical experince is usually experince of something, the Holy, the sacred some sort of greater trasncendent reality we should assume that the object is real since the affects or real, or that the affects are the result of some real higher reailty.

(5)The true measure of the reality of the co-dterminate is the transfomrative power of the affects.


Analysis:
Real Affects of Mystical Experince Imply Co-determinate

A. Study and Nature of Mystical Experiences

Mystical experince is only one aspect of religious experince, but I will focuss on it in this argument. Most other kinds of religious expeince are difficult to study since they are more subjective and have less dramatic results. But mystical experince can actually be measured empirically in terms of its affects, and can be compared favorably to other forms of conscious states.

1) Primarily Religious

Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integrationm (unpublished paper 1992 by Jayne Gackenback


http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm

Gackenback website is Spiritwatch

Quotes:

"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."

2) Defining charactoristics.

[Gackenback]

"In a recent review of the mystical experience Lukoff and Lu (1988) acknowledged that the "definition of a mystical experience ranges greatly (p. 163)." Maslow (1969) offered 35 definitions of "transcendence", a term often associated with mystical experiences and used by Alexander et al. to refer to the process of accessing PC."

Lukoff (1985) identified five common characteristics of mystical experiences which could be operationalized for assessment purposes. They are:

1. Ecstatic mood, which he identified as the most common feature;
2. Sense of newly gained knowledge, which includes a belief that the mysteries of life have been revealed;
3. Perceptual alterations, which range from "heightened sensations to auditory and visual hallucinations (p. 167)";
4. Delusions (if present) have themes related to mythology, which includes an incredible range diversity and range;
5. No conceptual disorganization, unlike psychotic persons those with mystical experiences do NOT suffer from disturbances in language and speech.
It can be seen from the explanation of PC earlier that this list of qualities overlaps in part those delineated by Alexander et al.


3)Studies use Empirical Instruments.

Many skeptics have argued that one cannot study mystical experince scientifically. But it has been done many times, in fact there are a lot of studies and even empirical scales for measurement.

(Ibid.)

Quote:

"Three empirical instruments have been developed to date. They are the Mysticism Scale by Hood (1975), a specific question by Greeley (1974) and the State of Consciousness Inventory by Alexander (1982; Alexander, Boyer, & Alexander, 1987). Hood's (1975) scale was developed from conceptual categories identified by Stace (1960). Two primary factors emerged from the factor analysis of the 32 core statements. First is a general mysticism factor, which is defined as an experience of unity, temporal and spatial changes, inner subjectivity and ineffability. A second factor seems to be a measure of peoples tendency to view intense experiences within a religious framework. A much simpler definition was developed by Greeley (1974), "Have you ever felt as though you were very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to lift you out of yourself?" This was used by him in several national opinion surveys. In a systematic study of Greeley's question Thomas and Cooper (1980) concluded that responses to that question elicited experiences whose nature varied considerably. Using Stace's (1960) work they developed five criteria, including awesome emotions; feeling of oneness with God, nature or the universe; and a sense of the ineffable. They found that only 1% of their yes responses to Greeley's question were genuine mystical experiences. Thus Hood's scale seems to be the more widely used of these two broad measures of mysticism. It has received cross cultural validation" (Holm, 1982; Caird, 1988).



4) Incidence.

(Ibid.)

Quote:

"Several studies have looked at the incidence of mystical experiences. Greeley (1974) found 35% agreement to his question while Back and Bourque (1970) reported increases in frequency of these sorts of experiences from about 20% in 1962 to about 41% in 1967 to the question "Would you say that you have ever had a 'religious or mystical experience' that is, a moment of sudden religious awakening or insight?" Greeley (1987) reported a similar figure for 1973".

"The most researched inventory is the State of Consciousness Inventory (SCI; reviewed in Alexander, Boyer, and Alexander, 1987). The authors say "the SCI was designed for quantitative assessment of frequency of experiences of higher states of consciousness as defined in Vedic Psychology (p. 100)."

"In this case items were constructed from first person statements of practitioners of that meditative tradition, but items were also drawn from other authority literatures. Additional subscales were added to differentiate these experiences from normal waking experience, neurotic experience, and schizophrenic experience. Finally, a misleading item scale was added. These authors conceptualize the "mystical" experience as one which can momentarily occur in the process of the development of higher states of consciousness. For them the core state of consciousness is pure consciousness and from it develops these higher states of consciousness.


Whereas most researchers on mystical experiences study them as isolated or infrequent experiences with little if any theoretical "goal" for them, this group contextualizes them in a general model of development (Alexander et al., 1990) with their permanent establishment in an individual as a sign of the first higher state of consciousness. They point out that "during any developmental period, when awareness momentarily settles down to its least excited state, pure consciousness [mystical states] can be experienced (p. 310). " In terms of incidence they quote Maslow who felt that in the population at large less than one in 1,000 have frequent "peak" experiences so that the "full stabilization of a higher stage of consciousness appears to an event of all but historic significance (p. 310)."

"Virtually all of researchers using the SCI are very careful to distinguish the practice of meditation from the experience of pure consciousness, explaining that the former merely facilitates the latter. They also go to great pains to show that their multiple correlation's of health and well-being are strongest to the transcendent experience than to the entire practice of meditation (for psychophysiological review see Wallace, 1987; for individual difference review see Alexander et al., 1987;




B. Long-Term Positive Effects of Mystical Experience


Research Summary

From Council on Spiritual Practices Website

"States of Univtive Consciousness"


Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources:

Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.

Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.
Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.

Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.

Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)



Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)

*Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive
*Likely changes in self and the world,
*space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate

*Some individuals report psychic capacities and visionary experience destabilizing relationships with family and friends Withdrawal, isolation, confusion, insecurity, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, panic, restlessness, grandiose religious delusions

Links to Maslow's Needs, Mental Health, and Peak Experiences When introducing entheogens to people, I find it's helpful to link them to other ideas people are familiar with. Here are three useful quotations. 1) Maslow - Beyond Self Actualization is Self Transcendence ``I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a still `higher' Fourth Psychology, transhuman, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness, identity, selfactualization and the like.''

Abraham Maslow (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being, Second edition, -- pages iii-iv.



2) States of consciousness and mystical experiences
The ego has problems:
the ego is a problem.

``Within the Western model we recognize and define psychosis as a suboptimal state of consciousness that views reality in a distorted way and does not recognize that distortion. It is therefore important to note that from the mystical perspective our usual state fits all the criteria of psychosis, being suboptimal, having a distorted view of reality, yet not recognizing that distortion. Indeed from the ultimate mystical perspective, psychosis can be defined as being trapped in, or attached to, any one state of consciousness, each of which by itself is necessarily limited and only relatively real.'' -- page 665

Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.



3) Therapeutic effects of peak experiences

``It is assumed that if, as is often said, one traumatic event can shape a life, one therapeutic event can reshape it. Psychedelic therapy has an analogue in Abraham Maslow's idea of the peak experience. The drug taker feels somehow allied to or merged with a higher power; he becomes convinced the self is part of a much larger pattern, and the sense of cleansing, release, and joy makes old woes seem trivial.'' -- page 132

Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.




Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration. Unpublished paper by Jayne Gackenback, (1992)
http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm

"These states of being also result in behavioral and health changes. Ludwig (1985) found that 14% of people claiming spontaneous remission from alcoholism was due to mystical experiences while Richards (1978) found with cancer patients treated in a hallucinogenic drug-assisted therapy who reported mystical experiences improved significantly more on a measure of self-actualization than those who also had the drug but did not have a mystical experience. In terms of the Vedic Psychology group they report a wide range of positive behavioral results from the practice of meditation and as outlined above go to great pains to show that it is the transcendence aspect of that practice that is primarily responsible for the changes. Thus improved performance in many areas of society have been reported including education and business as well as personal health states (reviewed and summarized in Alexander et al., 1990). Specifically, the Vedic Psychology group have found that mystical experiences were associated with "refined sensory threshold and enhanced mind-body coordination (p. 115; Alexander et al., 1987)."




(4) Greater happiness


Religion and Happiness

by Michael E. Nielsen, PhD


Many people expect religion to bring them happiness. Does this actually seem to be the case? Are religious people happier than nonreligious people? And if so, why might this be?

Researchers have been intrigued by such questions. Most studies have simply asked people how happy they are, although studies also may use scales that try to measure happiness more subtly than that. In general, researchers who have a large sample of people in their study tend to limit their measurement of happiness to just one or two questions, and researchers who have fewer numbers of people use several items or scales to measure happiness.

What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness



Argyle, M., and Hills, P. (2000). Religious experiences and their relations with happiness and personality. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 157-172.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

theFool2
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:31 pm

Re: Meta vs Fool2: arguemnt 2 Co-determinate

Post by theFool2 » Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:43 am

We already had this debate on CARM. I have no wish to have it again. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.or ... p?t=134796

It came down to the fact that in order for this to prove that god exists nothing but god can be the cause of these experiences. I and LACanuck both provided you with links showing that stimulation of the brain can in fact cause religious experiences. This shows that this argument does not prove the existience of god. It establishes that belief in god is good for you, but it can't prove he exists while other natural explanations for the phenomenon exist. There are countless examples of things people attributed to god in the past that were later shown to be the work of natural forces. Given that nothing has every been proven to be supernatural ( I dispute the evidence you provide because it does not actually exist) the odds favor tis being a natural phenomenon as well.


I actually believe in god (kinda sorta), as an aside. I prayed to god and asked him to come into my life. I decided to live as a Christian and see if god answers me. So far I ave no had such peak experiences myself, so I can not comment on their power and validity other than as I have already done.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Meta vs Fool2: arguemnt 2 Co-determinate

Post by Metacrock » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:49 am

theFool2 wrote:We already had this debate on CARM. I have no wish to have it again. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.or ... p?t=134796

It came down to the fact that in order for this to prove that god exists nothing but god can be the cause of these experiences.
(1) I never claimed to prove anything. I said "ratinal warrant for belief."

(2) I disagree that to prove that religious is rationally warranted by these experinces you do not have to demonstrate that there are no other possible causes. What you have to show is that this is the most plausible one. Or that the others are not necessarily any more likely and I have demonstrated that.



I and LACanuck both provided you with links showing that stimulation of the brain can in fact cause religious experiences.
I countered that by quoting from the top researcher int he field who that is not an proof that it's not from God. What you fail to grasp is that this researcher, Newberg, says that the apparatus of the brain that transmits troughs through the chemicals and fires across the synapse to create thought, is a conduit and could just as easily be the way God set up communication with us. In other words, your argument is no better than say "you have to speak through your mouth,t he mouth is natural, therefore, what you say can't be from God because you are using your mouth to say it.

you have to prove that these sensations originate in the brain. To do that you would have to be in the brain while its working. Obviously we can't do that. So it's just as likely that this is the God made to communicate because we can't understand anything about the world otherwise. This is the way we see the world. The impressions we get of the world are re-written by our brains. We are not encountering th world as it is. We are re-writing it in the brain so we get an edited version.

You cannot claim that just because something comes through this system of brain chemistry that this proves it's of totally natural origin; becasue everything we think has to come through that system.

This is what Newberg says. assume there is a God. and God wants to talk to us. He cant' just boom out from the say and talk without us having a brain chemistry set up to receive it. We have to have that to understand anything about the world, even if God is talking to us. that means it would have to come through that system anyway, so it's really no big deal that it does.

you can say that these feelings can be stimulated, but that's just because the system can be activated in an artificial fashion. That doesn't prove that everytime it works it's bogus.

Where the proof really lies is in the effect of having had the experince. that cannot be explained.

This shows that this argument does not prove the existience of god.

I never claimed to prove the existence of God. it does prove that it's rational to believe in God and I just told you why that argument fails.



It establishes that belief in god is good for you, but it can't prove he exists while other natural explanations for the phenomenon exist.
But you failed so far to prove anything that really counters the actual reason the argument I make gives for belief. I've told you repeatedly the argument does not turn upon the feeling of the experince, or the fact that one has an experince. it turns oupon the effect of the experince. the long term result of having it. You can't show me anything that has the same kind of result.

this is what we should expect from the divine. why? because it's what religion is about. So therefore. this is just religion living up what it's suppossed to do. That means it's rational to understand that as an indication of is truth because it does it's job. It has the effect we should expect God to have upon us.
There are countless examples of things people attributed to god in the past that were later shown to be the work of natural forces. Given that nothing has every been proven to be supernatural
that is guilt by association. That's like saying Carter screwed up, Carter was a democrat, Obama is a Democrat therefore if we elect Obama he will screw up like Carter.

( I dispute the evidence you provide because it does not actually exist) the odds favor tis being a natural phenomenon as well.

you have no basis for disputing. I have documented time after time the vast array of studies backing my argument, you have never presented one study that even speaks to the issues of the long term positive effects.


[qutoe]I actually believe in god (kinda sorta), as an aside. I prayed to god and asked him to come into my life. I decided to live as a Christian and see if god answers me. So far I ave no had such peak experiences myself, so I can not comment on their power and validity other than as I have already done.[/quote]

I have discovered through research that almost all people using the term "atheist" really believe in some kind of higher power. When I say "almost" the stats are 12% are usually lumped into the atheist category, but 9% will actually say they believe in some higher power but not connected to an organized religion. only 1.6-3% will actually say "I really don't believe in any sort of higher power at all."

Your complaint is common. But just because you didn't' have an experince doesn't mean it's not valid. because millions of others have. The incidence rate is real high, some give it as as 1 in 4 people.

there are things you can do. The first thing you can do is open up to God. And you are going to say "but I gave him a chance and he didn't go anything." Well it's a complex deal and it takes sorting out. you kind of have to let God be God. He's got his own ideas about things.

But you are not going to force God to give you such experinces by running around calling yourself an atheist or "fool" and then belittling christians and playing this little mockery game. It's obvious you are not seeking it, you might think you are but attitude is totally wrong.

I was an atheist. I really was. I used to love to argue with Christians and make them feel stupid, although I never told them they were stupid. But I know from experince so you could just decide to listen to those who have been there before.

you can also do meditation practices and activate the God receptor centers. It would still be up to God but you can do things to cultivate a relationship with God.

I you ask Jesus into your life you should be living in faith and trusting instead of doing this childish "you didn't keep your end of the bargain" bit. I also know from bitter personal experience and I do mean BITTER how to play that game. I've done that beore too and it does not work. Trust is essential.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

theFool2
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:31 pm

Re: Meta vs Fool2: arguemnt 2 Co-determinate

Post by theFool2 » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:13 am

Metacrock wrote:
theFool2 wrote:We already had this debate on CARM. I have no wish to have it again. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.or ... p?t=134796

It came down to the fact that in order for this to prove that god exists nothing but god can be the cause of these experiences.
(1) I never claimed to prove anything. I said "ratinal warrant for belief."
A look on CARM will prove otherwise.



(2) I disagree that to prove that religious is rationally warranted by these experinces you do not have to demonstrate that there are no other possible causes. What you have to show is that this is the most plausible one. Or that the others are not necessarily any more likely and I have demonstrated that.
Really? Where?


I countered that by quoting from the top researcher int he field who that is not an proof that it's not from God. What you fail to grasp is that this researcher, Newberg, says that the apparatus of the brain that transmits troughs through the chemicals and fires across the synapse to create thought, is a conduit and could just as easily be the way God set up communication with us. In other words, your argument is no better than say "you have to speak through your mouth,t he mouth is natural, therefore, what you say can't be from God because you are using your mouth to say it.
First, irrelevant because while it may act as a conduit we already established natural stimulation of the brain can cause such experiences. That is enough to demonstrate that even it is a conduit natural means can explain it. Given that in all things we have learned in the past natural explnations have been correct my original argument that the odds in favor of such an explanation here are very high stands.

Second,

He is not the top researcher in this field and every time you say that he is makes me cringe.
I have read his book-its trash. Some quotes from reviews of it:
But the broader questions these results suggest questions about the origins and significance of human religious behavior lead the researchers quite out of their depth into a speculative rehash of Joseph Campbell, comparative religion and sociobiology. This culminates in a confused and confusing discussion of what it means to accept that religious experience is "neurologically real" or that spirituality "does us good."
Lay readers should be warned that although the topic is fascinating, the writing is geared toward scientific documentation that defends the authors' hypothesis. For a more palatable discussion, seek out Deepak Chopra's How to Know God, in which he also explores this fascinating evidence of spiritual hard-wiring. --Gail Hudson
http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-A ... 0345440331

This man is not the top in his field by any means.

you have to prove that these sensations originate in the brain.
No, just that natural stimuli can can cause them.


To do that you would have to be in the brain while its working. Obviously we can't do that. So it's just as likely that this is the God made to communicate because we can't understand anything about the world otherwise
What? I don't think it is just as likely. After all, one may make the same argument we are hardwired to believe in UFO's or something.

. This is the way we see the world. The impressions we get of the world are re-written by our brains. We are not encountering th world as it is. We are re-writing it in the brain so we get an edited version.

You cannot claim that just because something comes through this system of brain chemistry that this proves it's of totally natural origin; becasue everything we think has to come through that system.

This is what Newberg says. assume there is a God. and God wants to talk to us. He cant' just boom out from the say and talk without us having a brain chemistry set up to receive it. We have to have that to understand anything about the world, even if God is talking to us. that means it would have to come through that system anyway, so it's really no big deal that it does.

you can say that these feelings can be stimulated, but that's just because the system can be activated in an artificial fashion. That doesn't prove that everytime it works it's bogus.
It proves it can be caused naturally, so it is enough to dismantle your argument.


Where the proof really lies is in the effect of having had the experince. that cannot be explained.

This shows that this argument does not prove the existience of god.

I never claimed to prove the existence of God. it does prove that it's rational to believe in God and I just told you why that argument fails.
It isn't that either for the reasons listed above.




It establishes that belief in god is good for you, but it can't prove he exists while other natural explanations for the phenomenon exist.
But you failed so far to prove anything that really counters the actual reason the argument I make gives for belief. I've told you repeatedly the argument does not turn upon the feeling of the experince, or the fact that one has an experince. it turns oupon the effect of the experince. the long term result of having it. You can't show me anything that has the same kind of result.
Insanity often produces a number of long term effects.



this is what we should expect from the divine. why? because it's what religion is about. So therefore. this is just religion living up what it's suppossed to do. That means it's rational to understand that as an indication of is truth because it does it's job. It has the effect we should expect God to have upon us.
But we are making the assumption god exists. If I see a footprint thats large I don't assume that it was bigfoot that created it. I assume it is a hoax and attempt to investigate the footprint. When you bring up religious experiences the first thing we should do is look for a natural explanation because they have always been correct, and this applies even more than it would in my example because we are talking about subjective feelings and not empirical data.

There are countless examples of things people attributed to god in the past that were later shown to be the work of natural forces. Given that nothing has every been proven to be supernatural
that is guilt by association. That's like saying Carter screwed up, Carter was a democrat, Obama is a Democrat therefore if we elect Obama he will screw up like Carter.
If EVERY Democrat in office screwed up then no one would ever vote for the Democrats.



( I dispute the evidence you provide because it does not actually exist) the odds favor tis being a natural phenomenon as well.

you have no basis for disputing. I have documented time after time the vast array of studies backing my argument, you have never presented one study that even speaks to the issues of the long term positive effects.


[qutoe]I actually believe in god (kinda sorta), as an aside. I prayed to god and asked him to come into my life. I decided to live as a Christian and see if god answers me. So far I ave no had such peak experiences myself, so I can not comment on their power and validity other than as I have already done.
I have discovered through research that almost all people using the term "atheist" really believe in some kind of higher power[/quote]I don't label myself that.


. When I say "almost" the stats are 12% are usually lumped into the atheist category, but 9% will actually say they believe in some higher power but not connected to an organized religion. only 1.6-3% will actually say "I really don't believe in any sort of higher power at all."

Your complaint is common. But just because you didn't' have an experince doesn't mean it's not valid. because millions of others have. The incidence rate is real high, some give it as as 1 in 4 people.

there are things you can do. The first thing you can do is open up to God. And you are going to say "but I gave him a chance and he didn't go anything." Well it's a complex deal and it takes sorting out. you kind of have to let God be God. He's got his own ideas about things.

But you are not going to force God to give you such experinces by running around calling yourself an atheist or "fool" and then belittling christians and playing this little mockery game. It's obvious you are not seeking it, you might think you are but attitude is totally wrong.
Why thanks for insinuating my search for meaning and truth is all a front I'm putting on!

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Meta vs Fool2: arguemnt 2 Co-determinate

Post by Metacrock » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:16 am

theFool2 wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
theFool2 wrote:We already had this debate on CARM. I have no wish to have it again. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.or ... p?t=134796

It came down to the fact that in order for this to prove that god exists nothing but god can be the cause of these experiences.
(1) I never claimed to prove anything. I said "ratinal warrant for belief."
A look on CARM will prove otherwise.
that's the only claim I've ever made. It's on my website, everyone knows it. as HRG. I've said this for years.

(2) I disagree that to prove that religious is rationally warranted by these experinces you do not have to demonstrate that there are no other possible causes. What you have to show is that this is the most plausible one. Or that the others are not necessarily any more likely and I have demonstrated that.
Really? Where? [/quote]

try looking at my arguments. you choose not to recognize answers, they you can conceived yourself that you have never been answered. Stop playing games and try to reason.


I countered that by quoting from the top researcher int he field who that is not an proof that it's not from God. What you fail to grasp is that this researcher, Newberg, says that the apparatus of the brain that transmits troughs through the chemicals and fires across the synapse to create thought, is a conduit and could just as easily be the way God set up communication with us. In other words, your argument is no better than say "you have to speak through your mouth,t he mouth is natural, therefore, what you say can't be from God because you are using your mouth to say it.
First, irrelevant because while it may act as a conduit we already established natural stimulation of the brain can cause such experiences.
I answered that. Do you get it? I answered it. I answered that. look at my answer, I ansered it. stop playing your little game of pretending the other guy didn't say anythnig and try really debating for a change. I answered that.

what did I say? I said it is just opening the receiving centers. that doesn't prove anything. analogy: turning no a tv doesn't prove the broadcast originates inside the box.


That is enough to demonstrate that even it is a conduit natural means can explain it.
No. I just answered it, do you see that? just above I just answered it. what did I say? I said "its' opening the centers. it's not proving that it originates int he head, it's just opening the center so you can receive. do you understand? It's turning on the tv and see snow and you say "see this proves there is no tv station, this is just in the box. But it's just that the show isn't broadcast yet.

that answer is given by the major researcher in the field. that's what Newberg, that's science that's his answer of science.


Given that in all things we have learned in the past natural explnations have been correct my original argument that the odds in favor of such an explanation here are very high stands.

but you haven't backed any of it up with a single study. I have quoted the major researcher in the field and it's backed up by 300 studies. You have not quoted a sinlge expert saying "this proves it's only in the head." the major researcher says otherwise. do you hear me? do you get that?

The major researcher disagrees with you.

now don't say "I refuted that" because you didn't. I answered it. so its' answered see it it's answered. get it?



Second,
He is not the top researcher in this field and every time you say that he is makes me cringe.
I have read his book-its trash. Some quotes from reviews of it:

He was the first to start researching
he's been doing it longer
his findings are more accepted.
the people in the field look to him as major.

On what basis do you question his book? He's done the work, you have not. I think your misguided because he tries to write simply for non experts he's writing that book for the general public. you have no no scientific basis for challenging anything he says.

there's a hell of a lot more to say about, Other major scientists don't think this disproves anything. Major philosophers don't buy it. John Hick has a book about it. Pinker doesn't think it proves anything but admits that the experinces would prove God but he wimps out with silly atheist arguments on the OT instead of actually admitting anything. but he does say that logically having these experiences is as good as any proof.
But the broader questions these results suggest questions about the origins and significance of human religious behavior lead the researchers quite out of their depth into a speculative rehash of Joseph Campbell, comparative religion and sociobiology. This culminates in a confused and confusing discussion of what it means to accept that religious experience is "neurologically real" or that spirituality "does us good."

you have merely decided by your all knowing ego that Campbell's full of shit. Linking it to Campbell is not argument against it. that is the genetic fallacy.


Lay readers should be warned that although the topic is fascinating, the writing is geared toward scientific documentation that defends the authors' hypothesis. For a more palatable discussion, seek out Deepak Chopra's How to Know God, in which he also explores this fascinating evidence of spiritual hard-wiring. --Gail Hudson

aahahh O ya Chopra now there's an expert!

(1) hes a proven hoaxer (see his experiemt of mind control on OPrah. I called the producer and told them how it was done and how to prove it was a hoax. he was never invited back to the show.

(2) he's a well known new age flake

(3) he would certainly agree with me that these experinces are indicative of the divine.

(5) Nweberg is a scientist his degree is in scinece, he has Ph.D. in a science. but Cophra doesn't.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-A ... 0345440331

This man is not the top in his field by any means.


Yes he sure is. he called the top researcher by New Science Magazine and other publications. show me docs that says he's not. your assertions are not evidence.


you have to prove that these sensations originate in the brain.
No, just that natural stimuli can can cause them.
that doesn't prove anythnig because I've already showen that any kind of commuication for mGod or anyone would have to go through the same pipeline. Thus it is aburd to calim that showing that something goes through means its not from God. you cannot indicate that.

what you think that means is crap it does not mean that because if it was from God it would have that way too.

that is an answer. you have to answer that. just saying you like it is not an answer.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

part 2

Post by Metacrock » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:41 am

Meta:To do that you would have to be in the brain while its working. Obviously we can't do that. So it's just as likely that this is the God made to communicate because we can't understand anything about the world otherwise
What? I don't think it is just as likely. After all, one may make the same argument we are hardwired to believe in UFO's or something.
No, there's no basis for that. We don't have a part of the brain that lights up when we talk about UFOs. we don't have long term positive effects from seeing them.

that's important because all the pathologies and external stimuli are negative. the only long term positive effects are form the RE. that means it's associated with religion and what religion is about and nothing else does that.


Meta: This is the way we see the world. The impressions we get of the world are re-written by our brains. We are not encountering th world as it is. We are re-writing it in the brain so we get an edited version.

You cannot claim that just because something comes through this system of brain chemistry that this proves it's of totally natural origin; becasue everything we think has to come through that system.

This is what Newberg says. assume there is a God. and God wants to talk to us. He cant' just boom out from the say and talk without us having a brain chemistry set up to receive it. We have to have that to understand anything about the world, even if God is talking to us. that means it would have to come through that system anyway, so it's really no big deal that it does.

you can say that these feelings can be stimulated, but that's just because the system can be activated in an artificial fashion. That doesn't prove that everytime it works it's bogus.
It proves it can be caused naturally, so it is enough to dismantle your argument.
causing it naturally doesn't prove anythingk. hare me? cauasing it naturally proves nothing. Because God has to woth naturally too. understand?

I've said several times now and you have never answered it. I wonder if you understand it. go back ot the analogy. If you have a tv and we arguing about does the signal originate in the box or is there a station far away that broadcasts to it? what you are doing is like turning on the tv and seeing the screen light up and the static on some Chanel that's not broadcasting and then saying "see it's just in the box, there's no station anywhere."

God has to use the tv of our minds. So you can turn it on and get a glowing screen but that doesn't mean the boradcast is on.

RE is assocaited with religious content and it draws people to the divine (conversions) and it has long term positive effects. You can semulate the feeling of having such an experine by punching on the brain in the right way (electronics) You can't produce the long term positive effects and you can't produce the religious content.

they do those experiments they say "I feel extacy and peace" but they don't say I sense God's presence and he told me he loves me." That kind of thing does not happen in the inducted states.


Where the proof really lies is in the effect of having had the experince. that cannot be explained.
that is the long term positive effects (LTPF)

This shows that this argument does not prove the existence of god.

I never claimed to prove the existence of God. it does prove that it's rational to believe in God and I just told you why that argument fails.
[/quote]It isn't that either for the reasons listed above.[/quote]

you didn't give reasons above. you said some misconceptions about the experience that I corrected but you have addressed the reason for he argument.

do you understand? the argument doesn't turn on just saying "I had an experince" do you hear me? do you see that? it means just the feeling of the immediate experience is not the argument.

do you hear me? If you don't' answer this you don't' answer the argument, hear?








It establishes that belief in god is good for you, but it can't prove he exists while other natural explanations for the phenomenon exist.

I just dispensed with them. the only you have is the fact that it comes through natural process. I have answered that in several ways:

(1) it has to be through natural processes even if God was talking to Moses so taht doesn't prove anything. Even when God said to Moses "whatever" it came through brain chemistry. so that is not an argument

(2) no LTPF

(3) the argument turns on LTPF not upon the immediate experince

so you have not answered the argument.
But you failed so far to prove anything that really counters the actual reason the argument I make gives for belief. I've told you repeatedly the argument does not turn upon the feeling of the experince, or the fact that one has an experince. it turns oupon the effect of the experince. the long term result of having it. You can't show me anything that has the same kind of result.
Insanity often produces a number of long term effects.
Nope. that does not work

(1) all the effects of insanity are negative. no LTPE with mental illness

(2) many studies show no similarities between mental illness and RE

(3) RE actually cures Mental illness and that is proven via several studies in the 90s.

(4) Therefor there is not basis for comparing

this is what we should expect from the divine. why? because it's what religion is about. So therefore. this is just religion living up what it's suppossed to do. That means it's rational to understand that as an indication of is truth because it does it's job. It has the effect we should expect God to have upon us.
But we are making the assumption god exists.
no you don't assume that just to know what the point of religion is. When you see that RE stacks up with the point of religion we can conclude that God might exist. That's not the same as resting the premise on the conclusion.

If I see a footprint thats large I don't assume that it was bigfoot that created it. I assume it is a hoax and attempt to investigate the footprint.
but anthropologists have learned to distinguish real animal foot prints form hoaxes. That's why some keep believing in BF even though some tacks are hoaxes. But we can distinguish between "haox" re and real re.
When you bring up religious experiences the first thing we should do is look for a natural explanation because they have always been correct, and this applies even more than it would in my example because we are talking about subjective feelings and not empirical data.
natural explanation wouldn't prove anything:

(1) even if God was talking to Moses, you hear me? He would have to use the natural brain chemistry to communicate with him. that's the only way we can hear.

so the fact that we find it doesn't mean anything

(2) the assertion that natural explanations are always right is ideological, not factual.you have no evidence. It also doesn't matter because that only effects a theology with a sharp dichotomy between sacred and profane. A theology that understands God in process dealing through the natural is not effected.




There are countless examples of things people attributed to god in the past that were later shown to be the work of natural forces. Given that nothing has every been proven to be supernatural
MEta:that is guilt by association. That's like saying Carter screwed up, Carter was a democrat, Obama is a Democrat therefore if we elect Obama he will screw up like Carter.
If EVERY Democrat in office screwed up then no one would ever vote for the Democrats.[/quote]

that is not an answer. your argument is guilt by association. you have not answered the fallacy you through up a red herring that has nothing to do with it.



( I dispute the evidence you provide because it does not actually exist) the odds favor tis being a natural phenomenon as well.
why would you say it doesn't exist? I've given the names of the studies. why can't you go look for them? You said you read Newberg, which I doubt. But there's some of it, why doesn't it exist?

here's a link to ansticle that talks about over 100 studies and prove they exist. It shows that the findings I speak of are backed up by a vast body of work.

http://ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.htm

meta:you have no basis for disputing. I have documented time after time the vast array of studies backing my argument, you have never presented one study that even speaks to the issues of the long term positive effects.

[qutoe]I actually believe in god (kinda sorta), as an aside. I prayed to god and asked him to come into my life. I decided to live as a Christian and see if god answers me. So far I ave no had such peak experiences myself, so I can not comment on their power and validity other than as I have already done.[/quote]

I have discovered through research that almost all people using the term "atheist" really believe in some kind of higher power[/quote]I don't label myself that.


. When I say "almost" the stats are 12% are usually lumped into the atheist category, but 9% will actually say they believe in some higher power but not connected to an organized religion. only 1.6-3% will actually say "I really don't believe in any sort of higher power at all."

Your complaint is common. But just because you didn't' have an experince doesn't mean it's not valid. because millions of others have. The incidence rate is real high, some give it as as 1 in 4 people.

there are things you can do. The first thing you can do is open up to God. And you are going to say "but I gave him a chance and he didn't go anything." Well it's a complex deal and it takes sorting out. you kind of have to let God be God. He's got his own ideas about things.

But you are not going to force God to give you such experinces by running around calling yourself an atheist or "fool" and then belittling christians and playing this little mockery game. It's obvious you are not seeking it, you might think you are but attitude is totally wrong.
Why thanks for insinuating my search for meaning and truth is all a front I'm putting on!

what I said was not the least bit insulting and it was not meant that way at all. you choose to see it that way because you are in defensive mode. get the chip off your shoulder and just talk. I'm not answer toward you anymore. I'm not trying to insult you. Even though you probably will never admit that you need forgiveness, I forgive you.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

theFool2
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:31 pm

Re: part 2

Post by theFool2 » Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:05 pm

Metacrock wrote:
Meta:To do that you would have to be in the brain while its working. Obviously we can't do that. So it's just as likely that this is the God made to communicate because we can't understand anything about the world otherwise
What? I don't think it is just as likely. After all, one may make the same argument we are hardwired to believe in UFO's or something.
No, there's no basis for that. We don't have a part of the brain that lights up when we talk about UFOs. we don't have long term positive effects from seeing them.
Of course a part of your brain is activated or you could not perceive them.

that's important because all the pathologies and external stimuli are negative. the only long term positive effects are form the RE. that means it's associated with religion and what religion is about and nothing else does that.
I would say the Placebo effect is close to it. It gives you the long term benefit of health because like belief in god, you believe you are better so you have effects.

Meta: This is the way we see the world. The impressions we get of the world are re-written by our brains. We are not encountering th world as it is. We are re-writing it in the brain so we get an edited version.

You cannot claim that just because something comes through this system of brain chemistry that this proves it's of totally natural origin; becasue everything we think has to come through that system.
I can claim it the most logical conclusion because we have established that it can be caused naturally and all other cause we know of are natural in origin.

Since you like to quote someone who is "top in his field", I think I can do the same.

David Hume on Miracles:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.





This is what Newberg says. assume there is a God.
Theres your problem.


and God wants to talk to us. He cant' just boom out from the say and talk without us having a brain chemistry set up to receive it. We have to have that to understand anything about the world, even if God is talking to us. that means it would have to come through that system anyway, so it's really no big deal that it does.
I disagree since not everyone has such experiences, and they are not based on sense perception but internal feelings. If god talked to me I would have no doubts left, RE would leave a lot of them for me personally.







you can say that these feelings can be stimulated, but that's just because the system can be activated in an artificial fashion. That doesn't prove that everytime it works it's bogus.
It proves it can be caused naturally, so it is enough to dismantle your argument.
causing it naturally doesn't prove anythingk. hare me? cauasing it naturally proves nothing. Because God has to woth naturally too. understand?
Can you establish that a violation of natural laws occurred? Otherwise we must use Occam's razor and assume it was natural causes which has always been right so far and does not posit an infinitively complex being.

I've said several times now and you have never answered it. I wonder if you understand it. go back ot the analogy. If you have a tv and we arguing about does the signal originate in the box or is there a station far away that broadcasts to it? what you are doing is like turning on the tv and seeing the screen light up and the static on some Chanel that's not broadcasting and then saying "see it's just in the box, there's no station anywhere."
Bad analogy because the stimulation of the brain achieved the same effect and not static. Secondly, we can all see a tv, and not all of us have RE. That alone puts them into a different category.

You have failed to understand my argument about miracles. If natural cases have always been the cause of everything we know of, and natural causes are possible, then logically we should assume that natural causes are the forces at work. Occam's Razor.




God has to use the tv of our minds. So you can turn it on and get a glowing screen but that doesn't mean the boradcast is on.

RE is assocaited with religious content and it draws people to the divine (conversions) and it has long term positive effects. You can semulate the feeling of having such an experine by punching on the brain in the right way (electronics) You can't produce the long term positive effects and you can't produce the religious content.
Sure you could if you continued such stimulation over longer periods if the RE were the same in both cases.



they do those experiments they say "I feel extacy and peace" but they don't say I sense God's presence and he told me he loves me."
Some did. You never did read my link did you?

That kind of thing does not happen in the inducted states.


Where the proof really lies is in the effect of having had the experince. that cannot be explained.
that is the long term positive effects (LTPF)

This shows that this argument does not prove the existence of god.

I never claimed to prove the existence of God. it does prove that it's rational to believe in God and I just told you why that argument fails.
It isn't that either for the reasons listed above.[/quote]

you didn't give reasons above. you said some misconceptions about the experience that I corrected but you have addressed the reason for he argument.[/quote]No, you ignored my argument about the logical nature of assuming it was nature and repeated the nonsense you already spewed forth.



do you understand? the argument doesn't turn on just saying "I had an experince" do you hear me? do you see that? it means just the feeling of the immediate experience is not the argument.
I know that you are claiming the long term effects are the proof. They are not because the experiences for all intents and purposes are the same. If you continued to stimulate one you would have the same long term effects. Secondly, as I already said insanity has a number of long term effects.


do you hear me? If you don't' answer this you don't' answer the argument, hear?
Wrong because the argument is about what is behind the experiences and not that they exist. You lose on that ground because you have to violate Occam's Razor. If I did not address this at all you would still lose 100%













It establishehttp://www.doxa.ws/forum/ucp.php?i=pm&folder=inbox
0 new messagess that belief in god is good for you, but it can't prove he exists while other natural explanations for the phenomenon exist.

I just dispensed with them. the only you have is the fact that it comes through natural process. I have answered that in several ways:

(1) it has to be through natural processes even if God was talking to Moses so taht doesn't prove anything. Even when God said to Moses "whatever" it came through brain chemistry. so that is not an argument
Perceiving something is not the same thing as feeling it internally and you yourself use this as an argument against my UFO analogy, so you are contradicting yourself to put them into the same category now.


(2) no LTPF
Irrelevant as I said.

(3) the argument turns on LTPF not upon the immediate experince
It really doesn't metacrock. You're reaching now because you are equating the effects as proof of god-but the effects cone from the RE, so the cause of the religious experience must be god in order for the effects to be god. We have already established that it is illogical to think they are caused by god, so you lose the argument before we come to the effects. Kthnax bye.



so you have not answered the argument.
But you failed so far to prove anything that really counters the actual reason the argument I make gives for belief. I've told you repeatedly the argument does not turn upon the feeling of the experince, or the fact that one has an experince. it turns oupon the effect of the experince. the long term result of having it. You can't show me anything that has the same kind of result.
Insanity often produces a number of long term effects.
Nope. that does not work

(1) all the effects of insanity are negative. no LTPE with mental illness
Thats false. Some people have placebo effects because they are insane or are very happy in their delusions.
(2) many studies show no similarities between mental illness and RE
Link me to one directly.

(3) RE actually cures Mental illness and that is proven via several studies in the 90s.
One could argue RE is merely another form of insanity, though link them to me directly.
(4) Therefor there is not basis for comparing

this is what we should expect from the divine. why? because it's what religion is about. So therefore. this is just religion living up what it's suppossed to do. That means it's rational to understand that as an indication of is truth because it does it's job. It has the effect we should expect God to have upon us.
But we are making the assumption god exists.
no you don't assume that just to know what the point of religion is. When you see that RE stacks up with the point of religion we can conclude that God might exist. That's not the same as resting the premise on the conclusion.
Ok...
The universe exists. It had a beginning so it might have a creator named Bizzosnatch. You can't claim this is rational warrant for belief because it MIGHT indicate something . You have to refute my argument about natural causes being the most likely or your are still making an illogical choice when you believe.




If I see a footprint thats large I don't assume that it was bigfoot that created it. I assume it is a hoax and attempt to investigate the footprint.
but anthropologists have learned to distinguish real animal foot prints form hoaxes. That's why some keep believing in BF even though some tacks are hoaxes. But we can distinguish between "haox" re and real re.
When you bring up religious experiences the first thing we should do is look for a natural explanation because they have always been correct, and this applies even more than it would in my example because we are talking about subjective feelings and not empirical data.
natural explanation wouldn't prove anything:

(1) even if God was talking to Moses, you hear me? He would have to use the natural brain chemistry to communicate with him. that's the only way we can hear.
Same distinction mentioned above that you yourself bring up in your post.

so the fact that we find it doesn't mean anything

(2) the assertion that natural explanations are always right is ideological not factual.you have no evidence.
It is a deduction.

It also doesn't matter because that only effects a theology with a sharp dichotomy between sacred and profane. A theology that understands God in process dealing through the natural is not effected.




There are countless examples of things people attributed to god in the past that were later shown to be the work of natural forces. Given that nothing has every been proven to be supernatural
MEta:that is guilt by association. That's like saying Carter screwed up, Carter was a democrat, Obama is a Democrat therefore if we elect Obama he will screw up like Carter.
If EVERY Democrat in office screwed up then no one would ever vote for the Democrats.
that is not an answer. your argument is guilt by association. you have not answered the fallacy you through up a red herring that has nothing to do with it.

[/quote]No, you have ignored my argument. It is based on probability and what we know about the universe. The only reason we assume gravity will keep working is because we have always seen it working. We have no way of knowing if it will stop working tomorrow. We assume that it will keep working because it is the most logical choice based on current data. This applies to the above argument I made. We know that no miracles have been established, and that natural causes of RE is possible. Given that we should logically conclude the natural is the most logical explanation.



( I dispute the evidence you provide because it does not actually exist) the odds favor tis being a natural phenomenon as well.
why would you say it doesn't exist? I've given the names of the studies. why can't you go look for them? You said you read Newberg, which I doubt. But there's some of it, why doesn't it exist?

here's a link to ansticle that talks about over 100 studies and prove they exist. It shows that the findings I speak of are backed up by a vast body of work.

http://ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.htm
Link me to the best study and not a large group to wade through.




meta:you have no basis for disputing. I have documented time after time the vast array of studies backing my argument, you have never presented one study that even speaks to the issues of the long term positive effects.

[qutoe]I actually believe in god (kinda sorta), as an aside. I prayed to god and asked him to come into my life. I decided to live as a Christian and see if god answers me. So far I ave no had such peak experiences myself, so I can not comment on their power and validity other than as I have already done.
I have discovered through research that almost all people using the term "atheist" really believe in some kind of higher power[/quote]I don't label myself that.


. When I say "almost" the stats are 12% are usually lumped into the atheist category, but 9% will actually say they believe in some higher power but not connected to an organized religion. only 1.6-3% will actually say "I really don't believe in any sort of higher power at all."

Your complaint is common. But just because you didn't' have an experince doesn't mean it's not valid. because millions of others have. The incidence rate is real high, some give it as as 1 in 4 people.

there are things you can do. The first thing you can do is open up to God. And you are going to say "but I gave him a chance and he didn't go anything." Well it's a complex deal and it takes sorting out. you kind of have to let God be God. He's got his own ideas about things.

But you are not going to force God to give you such experinces by running around calling yourself an atheist or "fool" and then belittling christians and playing this little mockery game. It's obvious you are not seeking it, you might think you are but attitude is totally wrong.
Why thanks for insinuating my search for meaning and truth is all a front I'm putting on!

what I said was not the least bit insulting and it was not meant that way at all.[/quote]It was insulting.


you choose to see it that way because you are in defensive mode.
Because when someone sends you a message calling you a cocksucker you don't go into such a mode right?
get the chip off your shoulder and just talk.
LOL Irony.......


I'm not answer toward you anymore. I'm not trying to insult you. Even though you probably will never admit that you need forgiveness, I forgive you.
I don't forgive you for the things you said on CARM. I will be civil to you on your boards, but as far as I am concerned you are a poor excuse for a human being and a thinker. I may get you riled up and that is not my intention. I just object to you playing the victim after the things you have said and done. A man owns up to what he says and does. Be a fucking man for once.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Meta vs Fool2: arguemnt 2 Co-determinate

Post by Metacrock » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:37 pm

you brought it on yourself. you called the tun. you are incredibly blind not to see that. you are just totally blind not to see that you called it. you can't treat someone like that and expect not to bet it back in your face.


you are incredibly arrogant and ignorant. you and your cronies did it. I merely responded in kind and you can't stand it. because you are selfish.

Ok I wont resort to a personal level. I'll answer your arguments tonight. as long as we agree to be civil, knock off the little attitude of absolute supiriority and discuss things like gentlemen then you can post here.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: part 2

Post by Metacrock » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:38 pm

theFool2 wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
Meta:To do that you would have to be in the brain while its working. Obviously we can't do that. So it's just as likely that this is the God made to communicate because we can't understand anything about the world otherwise
What? I don't think it is just as likely. After all, one may make the same argument we are hardwired to believe in UFO's or something.
Meta:No, there's no basis for that. We don't have a part of the brain that lights up when we talk about UFOs. we don't have long term positive effects from seeing them.
Of course a part of your brain is activated or you could not perceive them.
No, if that was the case no one would ever claim there's a God part of the brain. There's clearly a distinction between the way one kind of speech or heading effects us than the way speech in general effects. With God talk there is a cluster around several areas in the perital lobe which is not there in other kinds of talk.

If you really read the Newberg book you would have to know that.
that's important because all the pathologies and external stimuli are negative. the only long term positive effects are form the RE. that means it's associated with religion and what religion is about and nothing else does that.
I would say the Placebo effect is close to it. It gives you the long term benefit of health because like belief in god, you believe you are better so you have effects.

No, I answered that on carm

(1) Placebo is not a way of saying "not real." it's real, it's something in the mind that is really effecting the body.

(2) you can't claim the placebo is just going to make everything in your head work. it's about medical so you can't apply it non medical. it's about controlling pain, you cannot show (there is no data to show) that it effects things like self actualization

(3) arguing from analogy (well they's both in the head so it must be the same) that's a fallacy

(4) Placebo works by expectation, most RE does not come on by expectation it's usually totally surprising the first time.


Meta: This is the way we see the world. The impressions we get of the world are re-written by our brains. We are not encountering th world as it is. We are re-writing it in the brain so we get an edited version.

You cannot claim that just because something comes through this system of brain chemistry that this proves it's of totally natural origin; becasue everything we think has to come through that system.
Fool:I can claim it the most logical conclusion because we have established that it can be caused naturally and all other cause we know of are natural in origin.
No, you didn't take into account what I said. I answered this you are again pretending I didn't answer it.

(1) all things we know must come to us through thsi system. so just becasue it comes through doesn't mean it's only naturalistic

(2) it could just be the way God did it, the real reason to think it's God not the quality of the immediate experince, but the long term positive effects.

(4) No data has ever shown that lTPF can be produced from the artificially stimulated experinces.

(5) you are just turning on the tv and because you see a program you assume it originates in the box and not at a broadcast station.


Since you like to quote someone who is "top in his field", I think I can do the same.

that is a red herring

that applies to miracles. I never said these are miracles. I said God works in the natural, there's no reason to link it to miracles. you are trying argue that Hume can stop miracles because he knew best, the man was an ass, he knew nothing. he was smart alec alchi who hated God and was real stuck on himself. he knew nothing.
David Hume on Miracles:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature;
that right there contradicts what HRG said everything. so your great Guru says you are wrong do you not realize that?

and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.
I'll put up a special post for this on adventure of faith. I don't want it here gumming up the works since it doesn't apply. I think I will put up a third argument if you don't mind. Since the first argument you kind of agreed with.




This is what Newberg says. assume there is a God.
Theres your problem.
you are not listening. you are negating the argument before you here it. for the same of argument assume here is a God. do you not understand the idea of assuming for the sake of argument?
and God wants to talk to us. He cant' just boom out from the say and talk without us having a brain chemistry set up to receive it. We have to have that to understand anything about the world, even if God is talking to us. that means it would have to come through that system anyway, so it's really no big deal that it does.
I disagree since not everyone has such experiences, and they are not based on sense perception but internal feelings. If god talked to me I would have no doubts left, RE would leave a lot of them for me personally.
Your reading of what "internal feelings" are does not take into account the true nature of them. you just see that as negative buzz word. Newberg says much more is going there than just a feeling. it's a change in the brain which proves some real force is at work.

you didn't answer my argument. Newberg says that the way we process information God would have to use the chemistry of the brain to talk to us. there's no other way. if you want to argue you have to show me how the brain can work to give us sense data to process without using the brain chemistry.

that is the way we get the world. we get it second hand re-written by our brians. show me how it works otherwise?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

rebuttle: part 2 of part 2

Post by Metacrock » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:44 pm

Meta:
you can say that these feelings can be stimulated, but that's just because the system can be activated in an artificial fashion. That doesn't prove that everytime it works it's bogus.
Fool:It proves it can be caused naturally, so it is enough to dismantle your argument.

You're just repeating yourself. Iv'e answered that several times now. i've argued that just beign "natural" is not argument. you misunderstand my position from the first beause you albe RE as "mrialces." I never said they were miracles. you are not listening. so you have to extend beyond that and answer what I said:

(1) we have to use the chemistry of the brain no other way.

(2) if we assume there's a God that's what he as to do; just like if he wants us to hear audible voice he has to give us ears. get that?

(3) that means your argument is no better than saying "well God spoke to Moses by vibrating are and Moses heard it through his ears, that's natural so therefore God could not speak to Moses because hearing is natural.

It's just a set of chemicals ears. So that arguemnt is out the window because it would have to be done that way regardless. my argument doesn't turn on being a miracle! do you hear me?




Fool:Can you establish that a violation of natural laws occurred? Otherwise we must use Occam's razor and assume it was natural causes which has always been right so far and does not posit an infinitively complex being.
You can't use Occam's razor that way. that's a total violation of everything Occam intended. God is necessary, ontologically necessary and thus can never be multiplying entities beyond necessity.

where did I ever argue a violation of natural law? I don't think you understand even now what the argument is.

The thing is you working under the mistaken assumption that if God does anything then it must be a miracle. God created the universe, that was not a miracle. God is working in the universe all the time every minute that is not a miracle.God is part of nature and part of the natural world.

Consciousness is mind/spirit is mind. God makes his presence known to us it is through the natural apparatus that he made for us to understand the world through. That is no more a miracle than someone talking. If God spoke to us audibly it would be heard by our natural ears. It would vibrate the air just like natural speech does. it would have to.

God is analogous to a broadcast tv station and we are analogous to tv sets. We pick up the broadcast and that's the feeling of God's presence and the sense of the numinous that I'm talking about. We get it through the wiring and electronics of the tv set, the picture tube and so on. that's just the way the body the mind the brain was made to work. Its' natural, its' not a miracle. but it is from God.

the miracle is the effects that it has. But even that is the working out of a natural process. Because we are made so that feeling God's presence has that effect on us. that is not miraculous. it' noting like a miracle, but there's no other explaination save that it is the effect of divine encounter.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply