I'm confused, Metacrock. In my post, I said this, quoting from the thread in question:
But now you say this:KR Wordgazer wrote:Actually, that's not what Metacrock's saying either. To quote him again from that thread:
Metacrock wrote:
I. We should not expect Empirical Proof of God: nor do we need it.
II, We can understand a co-determinate, or God Correlate, which is empirical.
III. The empirical nature of the co-determinate provides prima facie justification for belief, which is sufficient justification for belief.
Metacrock maintains only that these experiences "provide sufficient justification for belief." Not "proof." Which is the same thing I am maintaining.
Did I misunderstand something? In what sense are you using the word "proof"? *looks confused*Metacrock wrote:LACanuck wrote:You misunderstood my 'reasonable conclusion' comment. My point was exactly that which you say in this quote where you say that the experiences don't prove there must be something out there. There are multiple explanations for the experiences. And while you are not claiming that the experiences prove that there is a reality behind them, the argument that Meta is making is that the experiences do prove that. My objection is entirely here...that religious experiences do not prove the existence of the divine.Yes, it is a "reasonable conclusion." It is not the only reasonable conclusion, clearly, since you also have a reasonable conclusion-- but I find my explanation far more reasonable than yours. I'm not trying to claim these experiences "prove" there must be something out there. But it is not unreasonable to think that is a possible, even a likely, explanation.
yes they do. alternate causality is necessarily something to deal with, but it can be dealt with. The argument can stand up to them, and so far has stood up to all comers on that point.