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

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 8:40 pm

the reason you are losing is this:

(1) your only counter cause argument is that seems to be naturalistic because (the experinces) through naturalistic means.

(2) that doesn't prove that it originates in nature apart from God

(3) just the immediate experince is not the turning point of the argument.

(4) the argument turns upon the long term effects. which you do not speak to, and you can't prove that existing the brain to fain the experince has the long term effects.

(5) the argument doesn't say it is a proof, it says it's a rational warrant for belief.

In other words we can construe it as an effect of the divine. Here's why

a) the content

b) it draw people to God

c) long term positive effects.

nothing else produces that. That's where the argument turns and you haven't touched it.

(6) just showing that experinces come through natural means proves nothing becasue any sort of understanding, communication or perceptions would have to do that.


http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/radiology/csm/cf.html
Andrew B. Newberg, M.D., is Principle Investigator and will serve as Chairman of the Interdisciplinary Committee. He is currently an Associate Professor in the Departments of Radiology and Psychiatry at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. He received his M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in 1993 and is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and Nuclear Medicine. Dr. Newberg has been particularly involved in the study of mystical and religious experiences as well as the more general mind/body relationship in both the clinical and research aspects of his career. He has also co-authored three books entitled, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning Spirituality and Truth, Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief and The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Belief that explore the relationship between neuroscience and spiritual experience. The last book received the 2000 award for Outstanding Books in Theology and the Natural Sciences presented by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. He currently teaches a course on Science and the Sacred in the Department of Religious Studies.
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/Artic ... fault.aspx
This book is also based on neurophysiological research that has investigated how the brain works in a variety of circumstances. These studies have helped to advance our understanding of how different parts of the brain work, and more importantly, how they work together. Research over the past two decades has also begun to explore the relationship between brain function and body physiology. Thus, not only can we describe what is happening in the brain, we can measure the changes to the rest of the body associated with various brain states. With this information, we can begin to explore in detail, how religious and mystical experiences impact our minds and bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_B._Newberg
Andrew Newberg, M.D. is an Associate Professor of Radiology and Psychiatry in the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. He has been a prominent researcher in the field of nuclear medicine brain imaging. In particular, his research has focused on the development of neurotransmitter tracers for the evaluation of neurological and psychiatric disorders including clinical depression, head injury, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease.
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 » Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:51 am

Metacrock wrote:
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.
You can't even point to is because you failed to prove it.


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.
[/quote]You failed to address my point and may deal with your failure with delusions if that makes you happy somehow.



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.
And I provided evidence that such centers can be stimulated artificially by people, and showed logically that this made them the most logical explnation.


but you haven't backed any of it up with a single study.
I was not aware I had to have a study which shows that the supernatural has never been proven. It hasn't. If you think it has been shown that there was a supernatural explnation for any event, and can provide the evidence (not like your "you have to but the x-rays" bit), then present it or shut up.



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.
Oh, appeals to authority are very logical aren't they?



now don't say "I refuted that" because you didn't. I answered it. so its' answered see it it's answered. get it?
No you..really didn't.


]


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.
Really? So the links I and LACanuck provided with scientific evidence showing he was wrong they could be caused by man, except by drug use as a "conduit" were lies? Read links people give you next time partner.



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.
Appeals to authority which do not address argumentation. Yawn.

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.
No, that was simply a review I posted in order to demonstrate that not many people but your assertions about what this guys has proven.








aahahh O ya Chopra now there's an expert!
His book, while it can be challenged, is far better than Newberg's book.Besides, I did not write this, it was merely an illustration about the reputation of Newberg.




(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.
Sure you did old buddy.

(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.
[/quote]You don't have a Ph.D. and HRG does, therefore, HRG must be better than you at the subjects you discussed with him. Perfect.





Yes he sure is. he called the top researcher by New Science Magazine and other publications.
Link

show me docs that says he's not. your assertions are not evidence.
I did. The links to the reviews of his book were my evidence. Where is your evidence that he is, since you made the claim in the first place with no logical justification?
what you think that means is crap it does not mean that because if it was from God it would have that way too.
Not relevant, already answered, and totally meaningless. My arguments about Occam's Razor and Hume's arguments about miracles would apply yo any external or internal stimulation and you have failed to answer them here. Red herrings such as the Chopra bit and this will not alter this simple fact: You lost .LOLZ

that is an answer. you have to answer that. just saying you like it is not an answer.

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

Re: part 2

Post by theFool2 » Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:05 am

[quote="Metacrock"
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.[/quote]
So, what? The brain still perceives them.


[/q

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.
Um, such areas exist for most kinds of stimulation and feeling........


If you really read the Newberg book you would have to know that.
If you had read any more books on this subject you would know why it did not matter.





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.
Yes, a belief causing an effect because the mid believes and not because there is anything actually in the pill; an atheist would compare you long term benefits to is because you have not established god is there.


(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
They are analogous not the same.

(4) Placebo works by expectation, most RE does not come on by expectation it's usually totally surprising the first time.
Because no one grows up thinking god exists........





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.[/quote]Because you did not do so, as I explain in my other post.

(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
The most logical answer is that all come from natural sources and not god through this system. Not a problem for me logically.


(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.
Effects are the result of the experiences. If , as I have shown, the effects can be natural, and natural is the most logical explnation, we must then refer to all causes of such effects as logically natural.


(4) No data has ever shown that lTPF can be produced from the artificially stimulated experinces.
Same experiences so I do not care.

(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.
A good analogy only in that tv program is created by human minds.







that applies to miracles. I never said these are miracles.
God causing us to experience such things is a miracle.

I said God works in the natural,
Thats like saying "gravity works because of angels pulling things together". It can never be proven and it goes againt Occam's Razor, and is therefore illlogical.

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.
Hume s widely regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English. This is so wrong that anyone with any knowledge will laugh at you, even Christians admit he is one of the greats.
David Hume on Miracles:
that right there contradicts what HRG said everything. so your great Guru says you are wrong do you not realize that?
How does it contradict? He is also saying such a thing can never be shown to have happened and so do not functionally exist.

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.
It does and you can't beat it IOW. You lose I'm afraid.



I think I will put up a third argument if you don't mind. Since the first argument you kind of agreed with.
I do mind.









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.[/quote]Be refusing to assume that the god the argument is arguing for exists before the argument starts?


for the same of argument assume here is a God. do you not understand the idea of assuming for the sake of argument?


Your reading of what "internal feelings" are does not take into account the true nature of them.
Define true nature as it is meaningless here.
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.
All emotions come from the brain dude.....



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?
You lost and did not address the crux of my arguments about Occam's Razor and Hume. I will not respond any longer and claim victory.

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

Re: part 2

Post by Metacrock » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:22 pm

theFool2 wrote:[quote="Metacrock"
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.
So, what? The brain still perceives them.
doesn't' answer.

[/q

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.
[quote[Um, such areas exist for most kinds of stimulation and feeling........[/quote]


No. Newberg says they don't. you are just gainsaying the evdience. why do you think Cheatergy and Newberg all the researchers research something that's not different than anything else and that is really well established.


If you really read the Newberg book you would have to know that.
If you had read any more books on this subject you would know why it did not matter.
that's not an answer, it's posturing. I've read several books and articles and written 50 page chapter on it. I don't' see any evidence that you read anything on it.

No, I answered that on carm
that's ridiculous. You have to answer them in this debate. that's totally a slough!

(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.[/quote]
Yes, a belief causing an effect because the mid believes and not because there is anything actually in the pill; an atheist would compare you long term benefits to is because you have not established god is there.
Yes, an atheist would do that because atheists are idiots and they don't think. Atheists just look for excuses to let themselves off the hook. A real thinker would answer, which you did not do.

(1) no answer to the expectation argument: Placebo has to be expected. that's the point., they think it's meidicine. So something that is totally unexpected cannot be compared to placebo.

(2) Placebo is real, it's an actual case of mind over matter. It not a case of creating an illusion of something that's not real. So the arguemnt about opening receptors would apply the idea that it's just made up and not real would not apply.

(3) you have no studies and no data linking the two. you are using your on lay person uneducated understanding to make a clinical diagnosis of something that requires empirical studies.

You are still playing that really where you pretend you answered something because you mentioned it but you don't pay any attention to what yous say.



MEta:(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
They are analogous not the same
I just showed why they are not analogs. admitting they are not the same is also admitting you don't have an argument. All you have is an analogy. analogies aren't proof it's a fallacy to argue from them.

(4) Placebo works by expectation, most RE does not come on by expectation it's usually totally surprising the first time.
Because no one grows up thinking god exists........

are you crazy? everyone in my childhood grew up thinking. everyone I ever knew did. Maybe you grew up with no no religious background but most people do.

that is also not an answer. In fact it helps me! you are answer adds weight to my argument that's not placebo. can't a genus like you see why?


and all other cause we know of are natural in origin.
Meta:No, you didn't take into account what I said. I answered this you are again pretending I didn't answer it.
Because you did not do so, as I explain in my other post.

liar you know I did butthole


Meta:(1) all things we know must come to us through this system. so just becasue it comes through doesn't mean it's only naturalistic
The most logical answer is that all come from natural sources and not god through this system. Not a problem for me logically.
Ok little fellow. I think you have a misconception about the natrue of arguments. I think that may be at the root of the whole problem. Since atheists don't like logic and cant' think they just don't understand how to work an argument.

See I just said something that answered you. It has to come through that anyway. that means it doesn't mother fucking matter if you say "it's naturalistic" because it doesn't answer my overall argument. So you can't just slough that off and say "i used the buzz word naturalistic and means I win." NO you have to academically answer what i just said. you have to show that it wouldn't come through that. otherwise it doesn't matter if it does.


here's an analogy to explain what i'm saying. Supposes the police are looking for robbery suspect and the witness says "he wore shoe." So they chasing off looking for some one wearing shoes. how many people would they find? a Whole bunch right. So they bring back person A and they say "this is him because he wears shoes." But his lawyer says "but almost everyone wears shoes so any suspect will wear shoes, that's not enough of an identification."
do you see the problem now? Its' like saying "all people who had religious experience also drank water. therefore it's just caused by drinking water. If it is something one does anyway and it would have to be that weather God did it or not then it's not an argument.

Can you really not understand what I'm saying? You have to answer that specific point. you can't keep just repeating the original argument you made. you have to answer that. that's debate.
META:(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.
Effects are the result of the experiences. If , as I have shown, the effects can be natural, and natural is the most logical explanation, we must then refer to all causes of such effects as logically natural.
think hard now, focus. If even miracles have to natural conduits, if any sort of contact with God has to come through natural chemitry of the brani, then saying it did int his case is not an answer to the arugment. do you understand? Its' like saying "he suspect wore shoes," but everyone wears shoes. do you get it?

The argument does not turn on the immediate experince. it turns on the long term consequences of having had it. can you not understand what 'm saying? do you understand the words I'm putting here? that means that to answer the argument you can't just asset that it's naturally caused just because the immediate experince goes through the brain chemistry because all experinces will do that. You have to deal with the long term effects.

you can't assert that they are naturalistic because nothing else produces them. Only the religiously oriented experiences do that. So you have to answer that argument. the thing about brain chemistry is not an answer.

Now don't just repeat your answer argument, you have to answer what I just said. do you understand it? Is it something you can't comprehend.



(4) Meta:No data has ever shown that lTPF can be produced from the artificially stimulated experinces.
Same experiences so I do not care.
not an answer so you lose the argument. So this is what debate is. you cant' keep repeat the same stupid ideas, you have respond to the new things. do you understand?

(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.
A good analogy only in that tv program is created by human minds.

that doesn't' affect the argument. It's a case of something the causality of which can be confused. So you are making a mistake about the causality in both cases. You are assuming that immediate results are proof of cause rather than must correlations.

do you understand those terms, cause and correlation?

that applies to miracles. I never said these are miracles.
God causing us to experience such things is a miracle.
No it is not. I explained that. you are making an assumption not in evidence.

I said God works in the natural,
Thats like saying "gravity works because of angels pulling things together". It can never be proven and it goes againt Occam's Razor, and is therefore illlogical.

that's an argument from analogy. you can't prove God doesn't working in the natural by mocking the concept. God created the natural world and it works the way God created it to work.

but what stands out and what can't be accounted for is the long term effects, becasue nothing else produces them and no one knows why they do. Until you answer that you have not answered the argument.

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.
Hume s widely regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English. This is so wrong that anyone with any knowledge will laugh at you, even Christians admit he is one of the greats.

that's bull shit. he is not the most highly regarded by a long shot. Nothing he said is still important today. He was totally replaced by Kant. Even if that were true it wouldn't make him right about miracles. His argument is miracles is circular. and it doesn't prove anything.
David Hume on Miracles:
that right there contradicts what HRG said everything. so your great Guru says you are wrong do you not realize that?

How does it contradict?


Pay attention now:

(1) first line Hume says miracle violate the laws of nature.

(2) HRG says there are not prescritive laws of nature, he says there are only deiscriptions of behavior.

(3) I say if there are not laws against miracles then they might exist, there's no reason to say they don't other than you just haven't seen one. but others have.

(4) my argument doesn't turn on miracles.
He is also saying such a thing can never be shown to have happened and so do not functionally exist.

but his proof is circular. the only proof he offers is that he hasn't seen them so they must not happen thus any evidence for them has to be discounted up front without even examining it, then on the basis of that assertion he asserts there's no proof. circular.

no proof because he ruled out having any proof before anyone could examine the proof.
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.
It does and you can't beat it IOW. You lose I'm afraid.
that's just the kind of little slough off bull shit hired raters have to pull because you can't answer a single argument. you haven't' you have not extend on one single argument I've mad but instead fail to get the drift on most of them\


O you lose I'm afraid. the person who can't extend the arguments or the answer the extensions loses. show me an singe extension you have answered? we have been through three rounds of extension you are still repeating the carp you said the first time.
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: Meta vs Fool2: arguemnt 2 Co-determinate

Post by Metacrock » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:23 pm

Define true nature as it is meaningless here.
sounds like you get your debate tactics from fruit roll up commercials.


#
More results from andrewnewberg.com »
#
Newberg, Andrew
Leading neurotheology researcher who conducted famous neuroimaging studies on monks; collaborator with Dr. Eugene d’Aquili; author of "Mystical Mind" and ...
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/qna.asp - 12k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

It's the google page that called him "the leading..."

UPHS Radiology - Center for Spirituality and the Neurosciences
- Oct 16
Andrew B. Newberg, M.D., is Principle Investigator and will serve as Chairman of ..... Currently she works directly with Andrew Newberg, MD as a Clinical ...
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/radiology/csm/cf.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply