NationStates Jolt Archive

Now I know that what I believe or not is inconsequential, and have no pretence to offer anyone truth or anything of the sort, but I will post this argument to see what holes people can pick in it (I have posted this elsewhere and had a disappointing lack of debate, even though most everyone on that board was Christian). I would also like to point out that I do not equate logical or scientific fact with objective truth, as the first two are exclusively part of the subjective experience, and thus do no impact on objective reality, regardless of the degree to which they are consistent with the laws of objective reality. However, for the purpose of this exercise logic is assumed (these points are also mentioned later on).


Clarification: I do not believe in science (I am only slightly less sceptical of it than of religion) or anything else on that matter, just so there is no confusion that this argument does in any way seek to endorse any alternative explanation to anything. If I conclude that there is no God, there is no "therefore this other thing must be true"... that is a fallacy of limited options.

Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it.

2) Logic is not innate - it is a cumulative phenomenon, which develops both by our own observations of the world and by communication with others as they share their observations of the world... thus it is the basic framework of human common experience of "reality".

*Note: These assumptions were chosen as the most generous concessions - something I thought everyone can agree to, for the point of this exercise. I personally am sceptical on both accounts, but that goes into solipsism and that's a whole different debate - and as it is pure subjectivism, discussion of an objective or universal concept like God is meaningless.

Axioms:

1) The rules of formal logic are true.
- I justify this on the basis that the rules of formal logic are the codified human interpretation of Assumption 1, according to Assumption 2

Premises:

1) An entity may either exist, or not exist, at any one time, but at no time can it be in both states of existence. (contingency)

2) God is such an entity.

3) There is no sufficient proof that God exists, and there is no sufficient proof that God does not exist. (I think all of us agree on this point... otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate)

Argument:

1) Because of Premise 1 and the difference between fact and fiction in human affairs, there a concept of logic called the burden of proof.

2) Of all things that can be conceived to exist, some have been proven to exist and are thus called fact, and some have not yet been proven to exist and are called fiction - to acknowledge a concept as fact, one must prove it to exist. The burden of proof is always on the party who wishes to qualify an acknowledged fiction as proven fact.

3) Thus an entity such as God, may or may not exist, but to accept it as fact we must prove it to exist.

Conclusion:

1) Premise 3 and Argument 3 conclude that we cannot accept God as fact. Until premise 3 changes to such that there is sufficient proof for the existence of God, the entity God is a fiction as per the rest of the points of the argument, tracking back to Axiom 1.

Now I know that there are a fair few assumptions here, but my guess is that almost, if not all, religious people will concede them. Let the flaw spotting commence:p

K great.

Refutation, nitpicking and/or flaming s'il vous plait. If I wanted agreement I would be talking to the walls :)

I don't believe anything I read in books, therefore God is right out the window. So is "gravity," "beauty," "the sublime" and "our customer service representatives."

Premises:

1) An entity may either exist, or not exist, at any one time, but at no time can it be in both states of existence. (contingency)

2) God is such an entity.
Why is God such an entity?

Are you not assuming the answer to your question before you've finished your argument here?

Other than gravity who broke my hand (******) I agree :P

Why is God such an entity?

Are you not assuming the answer to your question before you've finished your argument here?

Any entity is contingent, because of the definition of existence. Yours isn't a refutation of assumption, but rather of language.

Any entity is contingent, because of the definition of existence. Yours isn't a refutation of assumption, but rather of language.

What if god isn't an "entity" by our definition of the word? What if it resides in a different state?

Any entity is contingent, because of the definition of existence. Yours isn't a refutation of assumption, but rather of language.
Och, I'm sorry. Wrong end of the stick.

I thought you were saying that God is a creature in both states of existence, not that he abides by contingency.

Apologies.

In that case, I'd think you've got a fairly good argument if you can defend the notion that one should hold God to standards of human logic and assumption. For me, that's the killer for any 'God exists/doesn't exist' arguments.

What if god isn't an "entity" by our definition of the word? What if it resides in a different state?

Existence, residence, etc. are understood as attributes/states of and only of entities - i.e. everything that can be said to exist is an entity. Again, you are refuting language not logic here.

Existence, residence, etc. are understood as attributes/states of and only of entities - i.e. everything that can be said to exist is an entity. Again, you are refuting language not logic here.

Language and logic are intertwined, and cannot easily be separated from one another. You cannot deny the possibility that a supernatural entity like a god might not obey the same physical laws and logic that we do. Hence the term "supernatural".

I approach this question as an agnostic. To me, trying to proof or disprove the existence of the supernatural is ultimately meaningless because only the material world matters in our daily lives.

In that case, I'd think you've got a fairly good argument if you can defend the notion that one should hold God to standards of human logic and assumption. For me, that's the killer for any 'God exists/doesn't exist' arguments.

Well I agree on this point, but to apply the general direction of my argument again - i.e. burden of proof. Burden of proof is necessarily implied by the assumption that there is such a thing as objective reality. Any logical or scientific discourse relies on proven premises, but that alone does not make the conclusion true in reality, unless again proven by evidence - that is why I said I differentiate between scientific fact (what you can normally expect to find in objective reality assuming the laws previously observed apply) and objective reality (itself).

Thus to say that God may exist beyond logic may all be true and well, but as empiricism is independent of logic and necessary by the assumption of objective reality, you still need to provide evidence/observe that this is indeed the case.

Language and logic are intertwined, and cannot easily be separated from one another. You cannot deny the possibility that a supernatural entity like a god might not obey the same physical laws and logic that we do. Hence the term "supernatural".

Of course not, but in this case we do not ask whether or not God obeys physical laws, but rather metaphysical ones - i.e. the fact that existence and non-existence is not a matter of physics, but rather of definition. And what cannot be defined cannot have any descriptions (incidentally existence is such a description).

I approach this question as an agnostic. To me, trying to proof or disprove the existence of the supernatural is ultimately meaningless because only the material world matters in our daily lives.

Perfectly agree. My whole point is that if there is no proof thus the logical/reasonable conclusion is that God does not exist (which is why this thread was titled as the expression of a belief, rather than a refutation of the objective existence of God).

Let the flaw spotting commence:p
I've fine-toothed-combed this one, and let me suggest that you've taken an A4 page to state what could be summed up in 4 words:

"Nobody's convinced me yet".

Thus to say that God may exist beyond logic may all be true and well, but as empiricism is independent of logic and necessary by the assumption of objective reality, you still need to provide evidence/observe that this is indeed the case.
I think that may be a fair assumption, but as we have observed such a minute part of the universe, we cannot come to any solid philosophical conclusion yet.

As Kamsaki-Myu says, we can shrug not be convinced, but anything more seems a rather foolhardy endeavour. Saying that, I understand your just going through your own beliefs.

*snip*

One cannot disprove the existence of God with science and logic. If God does exist it is possible to be beyond such human concepts. I always find these sorts of arguments to be nothing more than mental masturbation.

Those who hold faith in such things can be accused of giving leave to their critical observation skills and holding onto ancient beliefs but they cannot be proven wrong in a logical sense. Aspects of that belief can: like evolution vs. creationism but the overall belief in God cannot.

When all is said and done it is a wash considering the damage done to humanity by religion when compared to atheism. Both have brought about hope as well as horror.

You forgot to count the part of the equation when you attempt logic on religious people and if you back them into a corner they get a dazed look on their face, spout a line of mantra from the Bible and act as though that settled everything.

I've fine-toothed-combed this one, and let me suggest that you've taken an A4 page to state what could be summed up in 4 words:

"Nobody's convinced me yet".

Yes ;)

I think that may be a fair assumption, but as we have observed such a minute part of the universe, we cannot come to any solid philosophical conclusion yet.

I completely agree.

As Kamsaki-Myu says, we can shrug not be convinced, but anything more seems a rather foolhardy endeavour. Saying that, I understand your just going through your own beliefs.

I have already said that I do not pretend that I have made a true statement of objective reality, merely that logic cannot justify a belief in God. I consciously assumed logic, and I concede that logic itself necessitates nothing about objective existence.

Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it.

2) Logic is not innate - it is a cumulative phenomenon, which develops both by our own observations of the world and by communication with others as they share their observations of the world... thus it is the basic framework of human common experience of "reality".

Assumption 1) is obviously false.
"Assumption" 2) appears to be bafflegab, with no precise meaning, and cannot be called either true or false.

That's as far as I got.

One cannot disprove the existence of God with science and logic. If God does exist it is possible to be beyond such human concepts. I always find these sorts of arguments to be nothing more than mental masturbation.

Those who hold faith in such things can be accused of giving leave to their critical observation skills and holding onto ancient beliefs but they cannot be proven wrong in a logical sense. Aspects of that belief can: like evolution vs. creationism but the overall belief in God cannot.

When all is said and done it is a wash considering the damage done to humanity by religion when compared to atheism. Both have brought about hope as well as horror.

You have missed the point. At no point did I argue that God did no exist, merely that logic cannot justify the belief in God (belief in God is subjective and the reality of God is objective, thus there is a world of difference between what I have argued, and what you understood of it).

You forgot to count the part of the equation when you attempt logic on religious people and if you back them into a corner they get a dazed look on their face, spout a line of mantra from the Bible and act as though that settled everything.

I have tried, as much as possible, to keep to assumptions they would concede.

If you pick the right god, there is sufficient evidence that it exists. For example, I exist.

Assumption 1) is obviously false.
"Assumption" 2) appears to be bafflegab, with no precise meaning, and cannot be called either true or false.

That's as far as I got.

If you would have gotten further you would have seen the comment that I assume this for the sake of the argument, because if we don't then we are talking about pure subjectivity so discussing an objective God would be absurd.

Next time you wish to make an intelligent comment, do read the OP :wink:

If you pick the right god, there is sufficient evidence that it exists. For example, I exist.

Somehow that just isn't the definition of God I had in mind, or one that any religious person would agree to. I have argued from assumptions a religious person would concede, not ones that I personally believe.

Somehow that just isn't the definition of God I had in mind, or one that any religious person would agree to. I have argued from assumptions a religious person would concede, not ones that I personally believe.

Try a pantheist, then. The universe exists, obviously.

Try a pantheist, then. The universe exists, obviously.

Are you being annoying on purpose? Everyone else seems to have grasped that we are talking about a God in the theist definition. Pantheism is basically meaningless, beyond saying that there is this sort of cosmic will, and auto-theism is just randomly assigning words to arbitrary agents. Can we get back on topic?

You have missed the point. At no point did I argue that God did no exist, merely that logic cannot justify the belief in God (belief in God is subjective and the reality of God is objective, thus there is a world of difference between what I have argued, and what you understood of it).

Same thing. If you cannot prove God's existence to be illogical then how can you prove that the belief is illogical? The belief is perfectly logical if God does exist. You have to prove the lack of God before you prove the belief in God to be illogical.

And how is belief in God subjective? People actually do believe in God so that belief does exist. Now you have to figure out if the object of worship exists for that belief to be proven true or false. You cannot separate the two.

If you would have gotten further you would have seen the comment that I assume this for the sake of the argument, because if we don't then we are talking about pure subjectivity so discussing an objective God would be absurd.
This is also an obviously false statement. You are committing the "false dichotomy" fallacy, where you set up two extremes (either reality exists exactly as our senses tell us; or there is nothing but pure subjectivity) and claim that rejecting one implies accepting the other.

Are you being annoying on purpose? Everyone else seems to have grasped that we are talking about a God in the theist definition. Pantheism is basically meaningless, beyond saying that there is this sort of cosmic will, and auto-theism is just randomly assigning words to arbitrary agents. Can we get back on topic?

You wanted to have flaws pointed out to you. I gave you one. :rolleyes:

If your argument is that nobody has been able to show a particular type of "god" exists, which is a widely known fact, then you're just stating the obvious and then congratulating yourself about nobody finding any flaws in your argument.

Red cars EDIT: have not been found to exist, as long as they're T-Fords. Ohboy, nobody can find a flaw in my argument about the existence of red cars.

Refutation, nitpicking and/or flaming s'il vous plait. If I wanted agreement I would be talking to the walls :)

Your walls agree with you? Mine just ignore me:(

This is also an obviously false statement. You are committing the "false dichotomy" fallacy, where you set up two extremes (either reality exists exactly as our senses tell us; or there is nothing but pure subjectivity) and claim that rejecting one implies accepting the other.

Don't be an imbecile and at least read what I am saying. Where exactly did I set up these two extremes or argued for either? I said I assumed, for the purpose of the argument, that there is objective reality (the reliability of our senses is was never even raised). Then I said that if I reject that assumption (i.e. "objective reality does not exist") it would be pointless talking about an objective God (and just to spell it out slowly for you, I am not now currently arguing that objective reality must exist because otherwise an objective God is nonsensical, just so you don't confuse yourself in words again). Objective reality must either exist or not. But I made no further comment as to which is the case or anything related to perception.

So can you please stop being dense and use some reading skillz to comprehend syntactical meaning, as opposed to just picking out random words and pulling arguments against what I might have said, out of you arse, mkay?

I don't believe in god (and when I say god I'm talking Judaeo-Christian, as that's what I've been brought up with) because I haven't seen any evidence that he exists. That doesn't exclude the possibility that he is there somewhere, and as far as I am concerned, you can't prove that god doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give theism the benefit of the doubt.

You wanted to have flaws pointed out to you. I gave you one. :rolleyes:

If your argument is that nobody has been able to show a particular type of "god" exists, which is a widely known fact, then you're just stating the obvious and then congratulating yourself about nobody finding any flaws in your argument.

Red cars EDIT: have not been found to exist, as long as they're T-Fords. Ohboy, nobody can find a flaw in my argument about the existence of red cars.

I was putting out a burden of proof argument. That obviously just went over your head.

Your walls agree with you? Mine just ignore me:(

"Turn green if you disagree! Remaining the same colour will be implicitly understood as agreement" ;)

I was putting out a burden of proof argument. That obviously just went over your head.

You know, I'm beginning to see why those on that other board didn't want to debate with you. Maybe you could try not insulting people for a change.

As you seem to be aware, the burden of proof changes when we consider a type of god that obviously exists or is thought to obviously exist for some sensible reason. You do not specify what type of god your argument is about, so by default all types that you can reasonably be expected to know are included.

You know, I'm beginning to see why those on that other board didn't want to debate with you. Maybe you could try not insulting people for a change.

Well they didn't debate because they agreed, but just went on saying "well we still have faith because we want to"

As you seem to be aware, the burden of proof changes when we consider a type of god that obviously exists or is thought to obviously exist for some sensible reason. You do not specify what type of god your argument is about, so by default all types that you can reasonably be expected to know are included.

Uhm, common usage would disagree. There is but one person so far who made issue with the obvious assumption. So obvious nobody felt the need to state it.

Secondly, I didn't insult people for their beliefs or whatever, I did so for replying without reading - i.e. arguing with what I might have said, as opposed to what I actually said. I don't think that warrants an apology.

There is but one person so far who made issue with the obvious assumption. So obvious nobody felt the need to state it.

One equals zero?

And you don't have to apologize to anyone, I'm just saying that if you don't want to be ignored, you could try leaving out some words that aren't adding anything useful to your sentences, dumbass ;) .

Uhm, common usage would disagree. There is but one person so far who made issue with the obvious assumption. So obvious nobody felt the need to state it.
I didn't feel the need to state it because I didn't feel it was necessary to the core of your argument. I do think the implied understandings or definitions of God are probably arbitrary in terms of human discourse, and my personal approach to theology is based on that fact, but I don't think that God in the Concrete (as the uncertain identity of that thing that is responsible for religious experience) is as important to you in terms of where you stand socially as God in the Conceptual (as a potential instantiation of the abstract idea humans associate with religious belief).

Your stance is reasonable regarding the latter. I don't think you need worry about a stance regarding the former; there be dragons, lots of negative light and a vast, swirling void of chaos. Just to make the point. :)

One equals zero?

And you don't have to apologize to anyone, I'm just saying that if you don't want to be ignored, you could try leaving out some words that aren't adding anything useful to your sentences, dumbass ;) .

Pardon my impatience for the reading impaired, who so selflessly sacrifice their time to share some of their opinions against arguments they dream up :rolleyes:

You should read more Pyrrho and less Hume.

Now I know that what I believe or not is inconsequential, and have no pretence to offer anyone truth or anything of the sort, but I will post this argument to see what holes people can pick in it (I have posted this elsewhere and had a disappointing lack of debate, even though most everyone on that board was Christian). I would also like to point out that I do not equate logical or scientific fact with objective truth, as the first two are exclusively part of the subjective experience, and thus do no impact on objective reality, regardless of the degree to which they are consistent with the laws of objective reality. However, for the purpose of this exercise logic is assumed (these points are also mentioned later on).


Clarification: I do not believe in science (I am only slightly less sceptical of it than of religion) or anything else on that matter, just so there is no confusion that this argument does in any way seek to endorse any alternative explanation to anything. If I conclude that there is no God, there is no "therefore this other thing must be true"... that is a fallacy of limited options.

Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it.

2) Logic is not innate - it is a cumulative phenomenon, which develops both by our own observations of the world and by communication with others as they share their observations of the world... thus it is the basic framework of human common experience of "reality".

*Note: These assumptions were chosen as the most generous concessions - something I thought everyone can agree to, for the point of this exercise. I personally am sceptical on both accounts, but that goes into solipsism and that's a whole different debate - and as it is pure subjectivism, discussion of an objective or universal concept like God is meaningless.

Axioms:

1) The rules of formal logic are true.
- I justify this on the basis that the rules of formal logic are the codified human interpretation of Assumption 1, according to Assumption 2

Premises:

1) An entity may either exist, or not exist, at any one time, but at no time can it be in both states of existence. (contingency)

2) God is such an entity.

3) There is no sufficient proof that God exists, and there is no sufficient proof that God does not exist. (I think all of us agree on this point... otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate)

Argument:

1) Because of Premise 1 and the difference between fact and fiction in human affairs, there a concept of logic called the burden of proof.

2) Of all things that can be conceived to exist, some have been proven to exist and are thus called fact, and some have not yet been proven to exist and are called fiction - to acknowledge a concept as fact, one must prove it to exist. The burden of proof is always on the party who wishes to qualify an acknowledged fiction as proven fact.

3) Thus an entity such as God, may or may not exist, but to accept it as fact we must prove it to exist.

Conclusion:

1) Premise 3 and Argument 3 conclude that we cannot accept God as fact. Until premise 3 changes to such that there is sufficient proof for the existence of God, the entity God is a fiction as per the rest of the points of the argument, tracking back to Axiom 1.

Now I know that there are a fair few assumptions here, but my guess is that almost, if not all, religious people will concede them. Let the flaw spotting commence:p

Two problems with this argument:
First, and least important: Argument 1 is false. Burden of proof is not a rule of logic, but of argument.
Second, and more substantial: Premise 3 is debatable. There are several arguments which purport to prove exactly what you deny: that there is in fact sufficient proof of God's existence. Due to the nature of your argument, you must definitively defeat every one for your conclusion to follow.

You should read more Pyrrho and less Hume.

I've read neither, but I'll get round to it eventually ;)

Two problems with this argument:
First, and least important: Argument 1 is false. Burden of proof is not a rule of logic, but of argument.

Quite the contrary. Logically, saying anything about reality which cannot be proven is akin to wishing things into existence, regardless of whether or not they are incidentally true. You cannot know they are true or not, and it is irrelevant, as long as your belief of such is not based on provable reality, your belief does not withstand logical support.

Second, and more substantial: Premise 3 is debatable. There are several arguments which purport to prove exactly what you deny: that there is in fact sufficient proof of God's existence. Due to the nature of your argument, you must definitively defeat every one for your conclusion to follow.

As someone said in another thread "history seems to have left you behind". All arguments for the existence of God have been refuted, and I can even amuse you and refute any argument you wish to bring forth.

I don't believe in God because he told me not to.

Now I know that what I believe or not is inconsequential, and have no pretence to offer anyone truth or anything of the sort, but I will post this argument to see what holes people can pick in it (I have posted this elsewhere and had a disappointing lack of debate, even though most everyone on that board was Christian). I would also like to point out that I do not equate logical or scientific fact with objective truth, as the first two are exclusively part of the subjective experience, and thus do no impact on objective reality, regardless of the degree to which they are consistent with the laws of objective reality. However, for the purpose of this exercise logic is assumed (these points are also mentioned later on).


Clarification: I do not believe in science (I am only slightly less sceptical of it than of religion) or anything else on that matter, just so there is no confusion that this argument does in any way seek to endorse any alternative explanation to anything. If I conclude that there is no God, there is no "therefore this other thing must be true"... that is a fallacy of limited options.

Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it.

2) Logic is not innate - it is a cumulative phenomenon, which develops both by our own observations of the world and by communication with others as they share their observations of the world... thus it is the basic framework of human common experience of "reality".

*Note: These assumptions were chosen as the most generous concessions - something I thought everyone can agree to, for the point of this exercise. I personally am sceptical on both accounts, but that goes into solipsism and that's a whole different debate - and as it is pure subjectivism, discussion of an objective or universal concept like God is meaningless.

Axioms:

1) The rules of formal logic are true.
- I justify this on the basis that the rules of formal logic are the codified human interpretation of Assumption 1, according to Assumption 2

Premises:

1) An entity may either exist, or not exist, at any one time, but at no time can it be in both states of existence. (contingency)

2) God is such an entity.

3) There is no sufficient proof that God exists, and there is no sufficient proof that God does not exist. (I think all of us agree on this point... otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate)

Argument:

1) Because of Premise 1 and the difference between fact and fiction in human affairs, there a concept of logic called the burden of proof.

2) Of all things that can be conceived to exist, some have been proven to exist and are thus called fact, and some have not yet been proven to exist and are called fiction - to acknowledge a concept as fact, one must prove it to exist. The burden of proof is always on the party who wishes to qualify an acknowledged fiction as proven fact.

3) Thus an entity such as God, may or may not exist, but to accept it as fact we must prove it to exist.

Conclusion:

1) Premise 3 and Argument 3 conclude that we cannot accept God as fact. Until premise 3 changes to such that there is sufficient proof for the existence of God, the entity God is a fiction as per the rest of the points of the argument, tracking back to Axiom 1.

Now I know that there are a fair few assumptions here, but my guess is that almost, if not all, religious people will concede them. Let the flaw spotting commence:p

All this really shows is that it is illogical to belive that such a thing as God exists. Then again we all know that anyhoo.

I used to believe in God, but He lies.

He creates a world that appears to be billions of years old, sets into place physical laws that cause us to believe that the Universe is even older and that fossilized dinosaur bones are millions of years old. He put forth evidence that man evolved from lesser life forms.

Then he puts out a book that says that all of Creation is less than 10,000 years old and we all descended from Adam and Eve(with a Noah bottleneck as well).

God the Deceiver. *nod* :p

I used to believe in God, but He lies.

He creates a world that appears to be billions of years old, sets into place physical laws that cause us to believe that the Universe is even older and that fossilized dinosaur bones are millions of years old. He put forth evidence that man evolved from lesser life forms.

Then he puts out a book that says that all of Creation is less than 10,000 years old and we all descended from Adam and Eve(with a Noah bottleneck as well).

God the Deceiver. *nod* :p

Nah, he's just a practical joker.

How else would you explain, the Platypus?

http://people.whitman.edu/~yancey/platypus1.jpg

Nah, he's just a practical joker.

How else would you explain, the Platypus?

http://people.whitman.edu/~yancey/platypus1.jpg

God the Pothead. *nod*

God the Pothead. *nod*

Huh? I am God?:D

Huh? I am God?:D

You're A pothead, you're not The Pothead.

You're A pothead, you're not The Pothead.

Not true. I am thy God, now pass the duchie!

Not true. I am thy God, now pass the duchie!

http://unleashingideas.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/rubber-duckie.jpg

Here ya go. :D

http://unleashingideas.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/rubber-duckie.jpg

Here ya go. :D

Bwahahahahaha! And verily I say unto you, never try to to outclown a clown!

Nah, he's just a practical joker.

How else would you explain, the Platypus?

http://people.whitman.edu/~yancey/platypus1.jpg

I think Boris Johnson is the best argument against both Evolution and Creationism, myself :p

God the Pothead. *nod*
"Oh my me, I left fucking pot everywhere.

I never should have smoked that joint on the third day. Now I'm going to have to create Republicans."

2) Logic is not innate - it is a cumulative phenomenon, which develops both by our own observations of the world and by communication with others as they share their observations of the world... thus it is the basic framework of human common experience of "reality".


I think that's an incredibly faulty definition of logic, but that's another debate.


The burden of proof is always on the party who wishes to qualify an acknowledged fiction as proven fact.

This is merely a pragmatic way humanity distinguishes from feasible beliefs and infeasible beliefs. It is not a universal rule however.


1) Premise 3 and Argument 3 conclude that we cannot accept God as fact.

That's agnosticism. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'don't believe in God', but I take that to mean 'believing that God does not exist', just because you acknowledge something as not factual, does not justify outright dismissal.

I believe my view of gods is best represented by this quote, as personally I cannot rationally believe they exist but would prefer that they did exist. ;)

"It is convenient that there be gods, and, as it is convenient, let us believe that there are." - Ovid

As for Republicans and Democrats, they make good paper weights. :p

I think that's an incredibly faulty definition of logic, but that's another debate.

As per the disclaimer, I wished to concede as much as possible for the God crowd.

This is merely a pragmatic way humanity distinguishes from feasible beliefs and infeasible beliefs. It is not a universal rule however.

Well I never said that God might incidentally exist, just that to believe he does in spite of lack of evidence is illogical (regardless of the underlying objective truth)

That's agnosticism. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'don't believe in God', but I take that to mean 'believing that God does not exist', just because you acknowledge something as not factual, does not justify outright dismissal.

More like weak atheism: "A belief in God is not justified" as opposed to strong atheism "There is no God".

Well I never said that God might incidentally exist, just that to believe he does in spite of lack of evidence is illogical (regardless of the underlying objective truth)


Irrational perhaps, illogical? I don't think logic applies here.


More like weak atheism: "A belief in God is not justified" as opposed to strong atheism "There is no God".

Well I agree with this.

...
3) There is no sufficient proof that God exists...

I think that would depend on the type of god you were talking about. Some models of god can be refuted with just logic. You don't even need burden of proof. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god that is associated with classical Christianity is one such model. Yopu could argue thatthe logic is sufficient evidence to disprove the existence of such a god.

This premise of yours does work for an immanent god who works solely through natural causes, or is otherwise limited.

But the problem remains: The evidence you look for, and appear to be missing according to your premise, will be based on what sort of god you are looking for.

I think that would depend on the type of god you were talking about. Some models of god can be refuted with just logic. You don't even need burden of proof. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god that is associated with classical Christianity is one such model. Yopu could argue thatthe logic is sufficient evidence to disprove the existence of such a god.

This premise of yours does work for an immanent god who works solely through natural causes, or is otherwise limited.

But the problem remains: The evidence you look for, and appear to be missing according to your premise, will be based on what sort of god you are looking for.

Well of course, but the thing is either God has such a nature that his manifestation will leave enough evidence to support his existence, or he does not. In the first case, if there is no evidence, then you can dismiss that model of God (which is what I believe you have just said). In the latter God is unprovable by definition, ergo, through the burden of proof, it is unjustifiable to believe in such a God. It's not that it does or does not exist, it's simply that one cannot justify a belief in that existence. Arguing for the existence of such a God based on its possible existence beyond definition is an argument from ignorance.

Well of course, but the thing is either God has such a nature that his manifestation will leave enough evidence to support his existence, or he does not. In the first case, if there is no evidence, then you can dismiss that model of God (which is what I believe you have just said). In the latter God is unprovable by definition, ergo, through the burden of proof, it is unjustifiable to believe in such a God. It's not that it does or does not exist, it's simply that one cannot justify a belief in that existence. Arguing for the existence of such a God based on its possible existence beyond definition is an argument from ignorance.

If such a god is unprovable by definition (which I am not sure is true), it is unjustifiable to believe in such a god through logic alone.

However, if someone were to have (let's say) a mystical revelation, such a god would be more logical than no god, for the person who had the revelation.

Hmm... it was inevitable to get to "mystical revelations" and "religious experience". The reason why I can't take these things seriously is because on the one hand you are extrapolating pure subjective experience to objective reality, and on the other, there are sufficient explanations for them without invoking extra unnecessary, unprovable entities to account for them. And this from a person who has felt that he is one with everything and that there is unbound love even when sober, let alone under the influence of alcohol or anaesthetics.

Hmmm. I prefer to focus on the question if worshipping God/Godess/gods/great spirits/burning shrubberies and so on is:
a. worth it
b. morally right

Sofar I have not found a religion that deserved a "yes" to both. If the deity actually exists or not is therefor not even relevant.

Hmm... it was inevitable to get to "mystical revelations" and "religious experience". The reason why I can't take these things seriously is because on the one hand you are extrapolating pure subjective experience to objective reality, and on the other, there are sufficient explanations for them without invoking extra unnecessary, unprovable entities to account for them. And this from a person who has felt that he is one with everything and that there is unbound love even when sober, let alone under the influence of alcohol or anaesthetics.

Why do you assume that such experiences are purely subjective?

Why do you feel that such explanations are sufficient?

It seems like you already know the 'truth', and are interpreting the 'facts' in accordance with it.

The reason why I can't take these things seriously is because on the one hand you are extrapolating pure subjective experience to objective reality...
Only in as much as is done regarding any other model of reality. I'm not suggesting that the Tree outside my window is necessarily there - that there is a tree - but that it may be convenient to consider it as such for the purpose of analysis of what is perceived.

... and on the other, there are sufficient explanations for them without invoking extra unnecessary, unprovable entities to account for them.
In a sense, the notion of God is, and is exactly, that which causes those experiences. At least, that's what I've found to be the best way of reasoning with people for whom God has some "deeper meaning". Perhaps, then, God is simply delusion, or abstraction to absurdity, or the personification of reality, or whatever. But it doesn't seem fair to refuse to take the experience itself seriously simply because of the supposed "conclusions" that certain people derive from it (those people having generally been jumped upon by religious institutions during the small window of vulnerability after the event itself).

Why do you assume that such experiences are purely subjective?

Nobody else seems to be able to even remotely empathise let alone conceive what is actually happening in such an experience. Plus it has no manifestation apparent manifestation beyond the self. Again, to extrapolate it to objectivity, you would need some sort of correlation with identifiable things that can be said to exist in the assumed objective reality.

Why do you feel that such explanations are sufficient?

Because they provide a coherent explanation in the context of the assumed objective reality without invoking further concepts for which it can furnish no further evidence or argument in support.

It seems like you already know the 'truth', and are interpreting the 'facts' in accordance with it.

Not really. I simply refuse to make implicit assumptions (i.e. other than those stated for the sake of this particular argument) in a systematic manner, as long as those assumptions cannot be empirically proven to be consistent with objective reality. If there were evidence that the source of religious experience was external, then I would concede that they reflect an objective reality, and would therefore seek to inquire into the nature of what they reflect.

Only in as much as is done regarding any other model of reality. I'm not suggesting that the Tree outside my window is necessarily there - that there is a tree - but that it may be convenient to consider it as such for the purpose of analysis of what is perceived.

Well we have already conceded that objective reality is there, and we have not said anything relating to the reliability of the senses. Now that image of the tree there correlates with the touch if I approach it, with the sound of the leaves, with the smell if it has flowers, and with the sensory perception of other agents which are given in the objective reality we have explicitly assumed. Religious experience however cannot be thus correlated against other frames of reference in objective reality, thus it cannot be inferred that it is of an objective nature.

In a sense, the notion of God is, and is exactly, that which causes those experiences. At least, that's what I've found to be the best way of reasoning with people for whom God has some "deeper meaning". Perhaps, then, God is simply delusion, or abstraction to absurdity, or the personification of reality, or whatever. But it doesn't seem fair to refuse to take the experience itself seriously simply because of the supposed "conclusions" that certain people derive from it (those people having generally been jumped upon by religious institutions during the small window of vulnerability after the event itself).

I have not questioned the existence of said experiences (I have even conceded that I may have had episodes myself), merely that from an experience that cannot be proven to represent objective fact, drawing conclusions about the objective is not appropriate - and since "religious experience" arguments seek to do just that, I have said that I cannot take them seriously i.e. the arguments, rather the experience itself.

Nobody else seems to be able to even remotely empathise let alone conceive what is actually happening in such an experience. Plus it has no manifestation apparent manifestation beyond the self. Again, to extrapolate it to objectivity, you would need some sort of correlation with identifiable things that can be said to exist in the assumed objective reality.

If no one could ever empathise with another in terms of such experiences, you would not have mystical orders. But you do, in every culture. Zen Buddhism and Sufism are two very well known examples.

Furthermore, such groups also provide training to adepts so that they can also experience this mystic oneness. How would this be possible unless there was some sort of correlation with objective reality?

Because they provide a coherent explanation in the context of the assumed objective reality without invoking further concepts for which it can furnish no further evidence or argument in support.


Maybe. Let's assume that people like that are delusional. But many of these people do not exhibit any other symptom of insanity. They are able to follow a logical train of thought, suffer no other apparent delusion, and generally exhibit no other symptom that suggests psychosis.

But according to your logic above, we should not believe insanity to be the case as there is no additional evidence.

Other hypotheses include epilepsy. However, the same as I said above about insanity can also be said of epilepsy. Many mystics simply do not show any other symptoms.

Please bear in mind that different things may cause similar reactions. it is entirely possible that weird hiccups in brain chemistry cause an experience similar to a mystic revelation, but that other experiences are actually first hand experiences of the divine.

Not really. I simply refuse to make implicit assumptions (i.e. other than those stated for the sake of this particular argument) in a systematic manner, as long as those assumptions cannot be empirically proven to be consistent with objective reality. If there were evidence that the source of religious experience was external, then I would concede that they reflect an objective reality, and would therefore seek to inquire into the nature of what they reflect.

I have an idea. Let us assume that dreams are a product of our subconscious and have no objective reality. Let us assume the same for drug induced hallucinations. Now, you know right now that you are neither dreaming nor suffering some sort of hallucination, right?

My question is: how do you know that? You must have some way of knowing that you are experiencing objective reality rather than a dream or hallucination. If you can figure out that criteria, and then apply the same criteria to a mystic vision, then you have a good chance of showing that such a vision is subjective rather than objective.

So, how do you know you're not dreaming?

Religion is a form a control. It always has been, always will be a way for those with power to keep their power opver those with out power. Think about it. Churches are the highest level of control over a population.

Religion is a form a control. It always has been, always will be a way for those with power to keep their power opver those with out power. Think about it. Churches are the highest level of control over a population.

Yes. This is why you should tell the clergy that you don't believe in god, even if you do.

I'm serious.

If no one could ever empathise with another in terms of such experiences, you would not have mystical orders. But you do, in every culture. Zen Buddhism and Sufism are two very well known examples.

Furthermore, such groups also provide training to adepts so that they can also experience this mystic oneness. How would this be possible unless there was some sort of correlation with objective reality?

You are assuming that what each and every individual in these cases experiences, is the same, and it is therefore something that exists objectively and can be taught. I do not concede that that is the case, or that it can be known whether or not that is really the case, because you cannot observe the experiences of any of those involved.

Furthermore, it takes an extra leap of logic to infer from coincidental (nevermind assumed) similar experiences, that these experiences are informed by a common objective source.

Maybe. Let's assume that people like that are delusional. But many of these people do not exhibit any other symptom of insanity. They are able to follow a logical train of thought, suffer no other apparent delusion, and generally exhibit no other symptom that suggests psychosis.

But according to your logic above, we should not believe insanity to be the case as there is no additional evidence.

Well you see, you are labouring under the assumption that insanity is something pathological that displays symptoms of irremediable lack of reason or logic. That is not the case. Most insane people are perfectly logical, it's just that their logical discourse does not at any point relate to objective reality (i.e. they do not take axioms from reality, and are not swayed to dismiss their axioms by the inconsistency of their conclusions with observable reality). So in essence, slight delusion and insanity is merely a variation of degree. However they are different in that the delusion is not explicitly refuted by reality whereas the insanity is. But the crucial point is that even though the delusion is not refuted, it is even less so supported, thus it is irrational to extrapolate conclusions about objective reality from a logical discourse that does not strictly relate to it (i.e. there is no empirical feedback to support the logic, it is merely assumed to be true, thus any conclusions are superimposed on the personal perception of reality, without any relationship to what is actually observed and observable).


Other hypotheses include epilepsy. However, the same as I said above about insanity can also be said of epilepsy. Many mystics simply do not show any other symptoms.

I think this is pushing it a bit far though. And this statement, if taken as true, suffers from the same fault as the belief in God and in "religious experience" - particularly that "it may be the case" therefore "I am right to believe it is the case". It isn't. No logic can support the conclusion.

Please bear in mind that different things may cause similar reactions. it is entirely possible that weird hiccups in brain chemistry cause an experience similar to a mystic revelation, but that other experiences are actually first hand experiences of the divine.

Well again, I have said before that this is not a matter of what is the objective truth, but rather of whether certain beliefs about objective truth, and particularly the belief in God (though this applies equally to "religious experience"), are logically justifiable beliefs.

As long as you cannot justify that belief, it is illogical, regardless of whether or not it is actually objectively true.

I have an idea. Let us assume that dreams are a product of our subconscious and have no objective reality. Let us assume the same for drug induced hallucinations. Now, you know right now that you are neither dreaming nor suffering some sort of hallucination, right?

My question is: how do you know that? You must have some way of knowing that you are experiencing objective reality rather than a dream or hallucination. If you can figure out that criteria, and then apply the same criteria to a mystic vision, then you have a good chance of showing that such a vision is subjective rather than objective.

So, how do you know you're not dreaming?

You assume I actually believe in this objective truth. I do not, as I have pointed out in the OP. Objective reality was an assumption made explicitly in the OP, and the purpose of this has also been clearly stated in the OP. I cannot argue for the substantive difference between dream and wake, because I do not personally hold that there is one, but we have postulated this was the case in the OP, and I have argued accordingly.

Now I know that what I believe or not is inconsequential, and have no pretence to offer anyone truth or anything of the sort, but I will post this argument to see what holes people can pick in it (I have posted this elsewhere and had a disappointing lack of debate, even though most everyone on that board was Christian). I would also like to point out that I do not equate logical or scientific fact with objective truth, as the first two are exclusively part of the subjective experience, and thus do no impact on objective reality, regardless of the degree to which they are consistent with the laws of objective reality. However, for the purpose of this exercise logic is assumed (these points are also mentioned later on).


Clarification: I do not believe in science (I am only slightly less sceptical of it than of religion) or anything else on that matter, just so there is no confusion that this argument does in any way seek to endorse any alternative explanation to anything. If I conclude that there is no God, there is no "therefore this other thing must be true"... that is a fallacy of limited options.

Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it.

2) Logic is not innate - it is a cumulative phenomenon, which develops both by our own observations of the world and by communication with others as they share their observations of the world... thus it is the basic framework of human common experience of "reality".

*Note: These assumptions were chosen as the most generous concessions - something I thought everyone can agree to, for the point of this exercise. I personally am sceptical on both accounts, but that goes into solipsism and that's a whole different debate - and as it is pure subjectivism, discussion of an objective or universal concept like God is meaningless.

Axioms:

1) The rules of formal logic are true.
- I justify this on the basis that the rules of formal logic are the codified human interpretation of Assumption 1, according to Assumption 2

Premises:

1) An entity may either exist, or not exist, at any one time, but at no time can it be in both states of existence. (contingency)

2) God is such an entity.

3) There is no sufficient proof that God exists, and there is no sufficient proof that God does not exist. (I think all of us agree on this point... otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate)

Argument:

1) Because of Premise 1 and the difference between fact and fiction in human affairs, there a concept of logic called the burden of proof.

2) Of all things that can be conceived to exist, some have been proven to exist and are thus called fact, and some have not yet been proven to exist and are called fiction - to acknowledge a concept as fact, one must prove it to exist. The burden of proof is always on the party who wishes to qualify an acknowledged fiction as proven fact.

3) Thus an entity such as God, may or may not exist, but to accept it as fact we must prove it to exist.

Conclusion:

1) Premise 3 and Argument 3 conclude that we cannot accept God as fact. Until premise 3 changes to such that there is sufficient proof for the existence of God, the entity God is a fiction as per the rest of the points of the argument, tracking back to Axiom 1.

Now I know that there are a fair few assumptions here, but my guess is that almost, if not all, religious people will concede them. Let the flaw spotting commence:p

Get this man a seat on Oprah

Don't be an imbecile and at least read what I am saying.
I did, you moron.
Where exactly did I set up these two extremes
In the post to which I was responding, of course: "if we don't then we are talking about pure subjectivity". No, it is perfectly easy for something neither to agree with your assumptions, nor to be talking about pure subjectivity.
I said I assumed, for the purpose of the argument, that there is objective reality (the reliability of our senses is was never even raised).Your opening post, which apparently you yourself have never read:
"Assumptions:
1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it."
This assumption is obviously false. Now that you have read it, do you agree?
So can you please stop being dense and use some reading skillz to comprehend syntactical meaning, as opposed to just picking out random words and pulling arguments against what I might have said, out of you arse, mkay?
If your poorly chosen words convey only nonsense to your readers, the fault is at the transmission end, not at the reception end. The only arse I pulled anything out of was yours.

You are assuming that what each and every individual in these cases experiences, is the same, and it is therefore something that exists objectively and can be taught. I do not concede that that is the case, or that it can be known whether or not that is really the case, because you cannot observe the experiences of any of those involved.

Furthermore, it takes an extra leap of logic to infer from coincidental (nevermind assumed) similar experiences, that these experiences are informed by a common objective source.

Actually, my point still stands even if we assume that all these experiences are not the same. And I am not assuming that it can be taught. I am poinitng out that it apparently is taught.

... i.e. they do not take axioms from reality, and are not swayed to dismiss their axioms by the inconsistency of their conclusions with observable reality...

Insane people do that. Mystics don't.

I think this is pushing it a bit far though. And this statement, if taken as true, suffers from the same fault as the belief in God and in "religious experience" - particularly that "it may be the case" therefore "I am right to believe it is the case". It isn't. No logic can support the conclusion.

You're the one that claimed that there were better explanations for mystical revelations. I merely pointed out that your criticism about a divine cause for the phenomena is equally applicable to two other secular explanations. In other (your) words, you can say that it may be the case that one of these other explanations is true, but you are not right to therefore believe it.

Well again, I have said before that this is not a matter of what is the objective truth, but rather of whether certain beliefs about objective truth, and particularly the belief in God (though this applies equally to "religious experience"), are logically justifiable beliefs.

As long as you cannot justify that belief, it is illogical, regardless of whether or not it is actually objectively true.


My beliefs seem to be consistent with my experiences, each other, modern science, and seem to withstand the rigours of debate. What do you mean by 'justify that belief' ?

You assume I actually believe in this objective truth. I do not, as I have pointed out in the OP. Objective reality was an assumption made explicitly in the OP, and the purpose of this has also been clearly stated in the OP. I cannot argue for the substantive difference between dream and wake, because I do not personally hold that there is one, but we have postulated this was the case in the OP, and I have argued accordingly.

Yeah. This is where the atheists usually stop debating: when we get to the point where we we have to actually talk about reality.

I did, you moron.

Your further answers indicate otherwise.

In the post to which I was responding, of course: "if we don't then we are talking about pure subjectivity". No, it is perfectly easy for something neither to agree with your assumptions, nor to be talking about pure subjectivity.
Your opening post, which apparently you yourself have never read:
"Assumptions:
1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it."
This assumption is obviously false. Now that you have read it, do you agree?

You really are that slow aren't you? That was explicitly taken as an assumption, granted to those I am arguing with, which would support it. I am sceptic, and I do hold it false, but all explicit assumptions are made for the purpose of the argument. If you would have read the OP and had any basic reading comprehension, you would have understood this.

If your poorly chosen words convey only nonsense to your readers, the fault is at the transmission end, not at the reception end. The only arse I pulled anything out of was yours.

I'm sorry if words confuse you. Go play with your dick in the sand.

Actually, my point still stands even if we assume that all these experiences are not the same. And I am not assuming that it can be taught. I am poinitng out that it apparently is taught.

I don't follow. It still doesn't imply an objective exterior source of these experiences.

Insane people do that. Mystics don't.

Well they assume exterior cause as universal truth, thus take an axiom unsupported by reality, and draw a conclusion about reality that cannot be verified, so in effect they are doing just that.

You're the one that claimed that there were better explanations for mystical revelations. I merely pointed out that your criticism about a divine cause for the phenomena is equally applicable to two other secular explanations. In other (your) words, you can say that it may be the case that one of these other explanations is true, but you are not right to therefore believe it.

Exactly. I agreed with you here.

My beliefs seem to be consistent with my experiences, each other, modern science, and seem to withstand the rigours of debate. What do you mean by 'justify that belief' ?

A justifiable belief is one that withstands the burden of proof argument. For example, evidence must support that belief, rather than not deny it. Of course the existence of God in the deistic sense is not inconsistent with science, but is the belief in such a God justifiable in the face of the lack of evidence?

Yeah. This is where the atheists usually stop debating: when we get to the point where we we have to actually talk about reality.

Well as I said, I am a sceptic to the point of solipsism, so the argument itself isn't personally relevant unless I argue from the framework of objective reality existing, which is an assumption one routinely makes in daily life. That's why, in this argument reality is postulated, and I have tried, as much as possible, to argue from a point with which a religious person could relate to.

I don't follow. It still doesn't imply an objective exterior source of these experiences.

You were the one who decided that being able to teach something implied it was at least partially objective.

Well they assume exterior cause as universal truth, thus take an axiom unsupported by reality, and draw a conclusion about reality that cannot be verified, so in effect they are doing just that.

What do you mean by "assume exterior cause as universal truth"?

A justifiable belief is one that withstands the burden of proof argument. For example, evidence must support that belief, rather than not deny it. Of course the existence of God in the deistic sense is not inconsistent with science, but is the belief in such a God justifiable in the face of the lack of evidence?

Yeah, we all have tons of those. Is the belief that one's senses are telling them the truth an unjustified belief?

Your further answers indicate otherwise.
Liar. My answers indicate that I have read everything you have written.
That was explicitly taken as an assumption, granted to those I am arguing with, which would support it.
Nobody, of course, would "support" the assumption, which is so obviously false that it does not represent anybody's position. You then said that the only alternative to that assumption was "pure subjectivism", and this too is thoroughly false, since there are many alternatives.
I'm sorry if words confuse you. Go play with your dick in the sand.
I am sorry that you are incapable of either reason or courtesy.

Nah, he's just a practical joker.

A joker, yes, but certainly not practical.

Quite the contrary. Logically, saying anything about reality which cannot be proven is akin to wishing things into existence, regardless of whether or not they are incidentally true. You cannot know they are true or not, and it is irrelevant, as long as your belief of such is not based on provable reality, your belief does not withstand logical support.



As someone said in another thread "history seems to have left you behind". All arguments for the existence of God have been refuted, and I can even amuse you and refute any argument you wish to bring forth.

What people believe is not the province of logic. Logic is simply the set of rules underlying the metaphysical nature of reality. Logic doesn't care what you believe or why you believe it. Modus ponens will not psychoanalyze you, and the principle of identity will not debate you.

Your contention that all arguments for the existence of God have been refuted is simply absurd. All have been argued against; not refuted. The Ontological Argument is still the strongest, in my opinion, but there are many variants of the Cosmological Argument which still remain in discussion.

What people believe is not the province of logic. Logic is simply the set of rules underlying the metaphysical nature of reality.

No, logic is the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

What people believe is not the province of logic. Logic is simply the set of rules underlying the metaphysical nature of reality. Logic doesn't care what you believe or why you believe it. Modus ponens will not psychoanalyze you, and the principle of identity will not debate you.

Your contention that all arguments for the existence of God have been refuted is simply absurd. All have been argued against; not refuted. The Ontological Argument is still the strongest, in my opinion, but there are many variants of the Cosmological Argument which still remain in discussion.

I think you just inverted the polarity of the warp coils

You were the one who decided that being able to teach something implied it was at least partially objective.

Not really. If it is objective it can be taught, but if it can be taught it can either be objective or not. The wording I used might have confused you, but I did not support that being taught implies objective reference, quite the contrary - that was the point on which I have attacked you point, as it is an "affirming of the ulterior" fallacy.

What do you mean by "assume exterior cause as universal truth"?

I.e. they assume that their experience is divinely inspired, when there is absolutely no evidence for this, nor indeed any sufficient reason why this should be the case.

Yeah, we all have tons of those. Is the belief that one's senses are telling them the truth an unjustified belief?

Yes, but we have assumed in the OP that objective reality exists, and thus the senses, being the only way to access that reality, we assumed to be at least partly reliable, so in this case they stand. I agree this is inconsistent, and that is why I am a solipsist, but in this case we have argued from the point where the senses are taken as justified belief as per the premise.

Liar. My answers indicate that I have read everything you have written.

Mhmmm :rolleyes:

Nobody, of course, would "support" the assumption, which is so obviously false that it does not represent anybody's position. You then said that the only alternative to that assumption was "pure subjectivism", and this too is thoroughly false, since there are many alternatives.

Are you 14 or something? Is the concept of explicit assumption beyond you? And then I didn't say that: all I said is that if you remove objective reality you are left with pure subjectivism. Removing objective reality and saying that all is not objective reality are very different things. If you have such a deficient attention span I suggest you go play on your Xbox instead.

I am sorry that you are incapable of either reason or courtesy.

I am capable of both, but do not extent courtesy to the mentally retarded.

What people believe is not the province of logic. Logic is simply the set of rules underlying the metaphysical nature of reality. Logic doesn't care what you believe or why you believe it. Modus ponens will not psychoanalyze you, and the principle of identity will not debate you.

Your contention that all arguments for the existence of God have been refuted is simply absurd. All have been argued against; not refuted. The Ontological Argument is still the strongest, in my opinion, but there are many variants of the Cosmological Argument which still remain in discussion.

The Ontological Argument is wishing things into existence and the Cosmological argument randomly assumes there can be no infinite regression. Is that not a refutation?

Not really. If it is objective it can be taught, but if it can be taught it can either be objective or not. The wording I used might have confused you, but I did not support that being taught implies objective reference, quite the contrary - that was the point on which I have attacked you point, as it is an "affirming of the ulterior" fallacy.

Actually, I asked you a question which you have yet to answer: how do these orders teach adepts to have this sort of experience if it has no correlation at all with objective reality?

I.e. they assume that their experience is divinely inspired, when there is absolutely no evidence for this, nor indeed any sufficient reason why this should be the case.

They have the evidence of their senses, and "the senses, being the only way to access that reality, we assumed to be at least partly reliable," according to you. And the reason may be that there is no more rational explanation than to ascribe the experience to the divine.

In other words, they have evidence and reason.

Yes, but ....

I don't think I agree with you. I think there is ample evidence for trusting our senses. I think the fact that they constantly provide consistent information that we can then use to survive is evidence. It seems to have more evidence than the opposing viewpoint, i.e. that our senses are not reliable.

The Ontological Argument is wishing things into existence and the Cosmological argument randomly assumes there can be no infinite regression. Is that not a refutation?

No. That's just a dismissive synopsis of an argument against those arguments.

Actually, I asked you a question which you have yet to answer: how do these orders teach adepts to have this sort of experience if it has no correlation at all with objective reality?

How can one teach a novel to another?

They have the evidence of their senses, and "the senses, being the only way to access that reality, we assumed to be at least partly reliable," according to you. And the reason may be that there is no more rational explanation than to ascribe the experience to the divine.

In other words, they have evidence and reason.

I thought we had already agreed on the difference between subjective experience and objective reality. The sensory input they receive cannot be correlated with anything else in objective reality.

I don't think I agree with you. I think there is ample evidence for trusting our senses. I think the fact that they constantly provide consistent information that we can then use to survive is evidence. It seems to have more evidence than the opposing viewpoint, i.e. that our senses are not reliable.

If you accept consistency as a standard, then you see why religious experience, which does not correlate with other consistently identified aspects of the objective reality, cannot be inferred to have any objective source.

No. That's just a dismissive synopsis of an argument against those arguments.

Not my statement, but the essence of those objections I have invoked. If you would like to formulate either argument explicitly, then I can formally refute them as well, but this has already been done countless times.

First off, I salute you for not Christian bashing in your disagreement with the Church. That being said, I'm not going to go in great deal to bash what you believe, even though I disagree with most of it. All I'm going to say is this...

Faith: n; 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

How can one teach a novel to another?

A novel has a correlation with objective reality. So that doesn't answer my question. Try again.

I thought we had already agreed on the difference between subjective experience and objective reality. The sensory input they receive cannot be correlated with anything else in objective reality.

I have not conceded that point because you haven't shown that it is so.

If you accept consistency as a standard, then you see why religious experience, which does not correlate with other consistently identified aspects of the objective reality, cannot be inferred to have any objective source.

Again, you have yet to show how it doesn't correlate.

A novel has a correlation with objective reality. So that doesn't answer my question. Try again.

You know what I mean. A novel does involve concepts found in reality but does not represent them. Though what I meant by novel, was a consistent narrative independent of reality (regardless of how much it is influenced by it). If that does not satisfy you, then let's consider the specific case of a fantasy novel. It has a perfectly coherent narrative and concepts you could identify with reality, but the central pieces of the narrative, the fantasy bit, is the the product of sheer subjective creativity. Yet it can still be communicated and taught. However, it cannot be extrapolated to objective reality.

I have not conceded that point because you haven't shown that it is so.

I didn't think it necessary. The subjective is implied by the fact that we are having a thought process to begin with, and the objective, which is that which lies beyond the thought process and is accessed through the senses, we have postulated in the OP.

Again, you have yet to show how it doesn't correlate.

Aye, but the burden of proof is on you my friend. You are proposing that such is (or can be) the case, whereas I simply doubt it due to lack of evidence. Provide evidence, and we may come to an agreement.

First off, I salute you for not Christian bashing in your disagreement with the Church. That being said, I'm not going to go in great deal to bash what you believe, even though I disagree with most of it. All I'm going to say is this...

Faith: n; 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Fair enough, but the core of the discussion was if this faith is justifiable through logical and reasonable discourse. Of course such a belief can be true, but if you cannot justify it, it is still an irrational belief (in the strict sense of unsupported by logic).

You know what I mean. A novel does involve concepts found in reality but does not represent them. Though what I meant by novel, was a consistent narrative independent of reality (regardless of how much it is influenced by it). If that does not satisfy you, then let's consider the specific case of a fantasy novel. It has a perfectly coherent narrative and concepts you could identify with reality, but the central pieces of the narrative, the fantasy bit, is the the product of sheer subjective creativity. Yet it can still be communicated and taught. However, it cannot be extrapolated to objective reality.

But a narrative is made of words, and words have an objective reality. To teach someone else the narrative, one would have to use words. In other words, they would be dealing with the objective aspect of the thing being taught. Just because a novel has subjective elements to it, that does not mean that the whole thing is entirely subjective.

I didn't think it necessary. The subjective is implied by the fact that we are having a thought process to begin with, and the objective, which is that which lies beyond the thought process and is accessed through the senses, we have postulated in the OP.

Not that sentence. The one following it. This one: "The sensory input they receive cannot be correlated with anything else in objective reality."

You have yet to show this to be true.

Aye, but the burden of proof is on you my friend. You are proposing that such is (or can be) the case, whereas I simply doubt it due to lack of evidence. Provide evidence, and we may come to an agreement.

No. You're the one who made the claim that mystical experiences are entirely subjective. You have yet to provide any evidence supporting your claim.

EDIT: To use your terminology, your belief that mystical experiences are entirely subjective, is an unjustified belief.

But a narrative is made of words, and words have an objective reality. To teach someone else the narrative, one would have to use words. In other words, they would be dealing with the objective aspect of the thing being taught. Just because a novel has subjective elements to it, that does not mean that the whole thing is entirely subjective.

Now you are deliberately twisting the initial meaning of what I said. The essence of the novel, just like the essence of religious experience, is purely subjective because one cannot prove any relation of that to any exterior objective sources. The fact that to utter a novel you need words, and to claim to have a religious experience you need words, and the fact that these words occur in reality and can impact on it, does not change the initial fact, nor does it contest my statement.

Not that sentence. The one following it. This one: "The sensory input they receive cannot be correlated with anything else in objective reality."

You have yet to show this to be true.

Burden of proof.

No. You're the one who made the claim that mystical experiences are entirely subjective. You have yet to provide any evidence supporting your claim.

My claim is a negative. Yours is the affirmative. It is evident to both of us that mystical experiences are at least subjective, and you propose that it is also originated in the objective. I contest the latter part. You are supporting the affirmative side of the argument, that what we know is subjective draws from the objective, thus the burden of proof is with you.

EDIT: To use your terminology, your belief that mystical experiences are entirely subjective, is an unjustified belief.

Not at all. It is doubt, as necessitated by the empirical principle. I doubt, and you have to prove.


Objective reality informs the subjective experience of that reality, but the subjective existence of that reality does not inform objective reality itself. Thus when something is conceived, it is known to be conceived in the subjective. Until observation confirms that it also occurs in the objective, the default is that it is a subjective experience only. Thus whenever you argue that subjective experience has a source in the objective the burden of proof is on you.

we have assumed in the OP that objective reality exists, and thus the senses, being the only way to access that reality, we assumed to be at least partly reliable
Your assumption that senses are the only (emphasis added) way to access reality is what you have never made even the slightest attempt to justify. The religious position is that there does exist an objective reality, some fundamental and crucial aspects of which are not accessible by the ordinary senses, but only through other forms of experience, which would be equally open to you if you had any willingness.
Your assertion in the OP was not, in any case, that the senses were "partly" reliable, but that objective reality is "exactly" as the senses say, such an over-the-top claim that even you ought to recognize what the problem is.

Are you 14 or something?
I'm 54. What are you, about 5?
And then I didn't say that: all I said is that if you remove objective reality you are left with pure subjectivism.
No, you were claiming that if you do not believe objective reality is entirely confined to what the senses reveal, then you were left with pure subjectivism. That is simply not true: the other alternatives, which you are not even able to perceive the possibility of, apparently, are precisely the kinds of viewpoints which you pretend to want to argue against. First you would need some understanding of what the other side actually believes, before you could address them.
I am capable of both, but do not extent courtesy to the mentally retarded.
You have given a perfect example, again, that you do not have the slightest concept of what the word "courtesy" even means.

Your assumption that senses are the only (emphasis added) way to access reality is what you have never made even the slightest attempt to justify. The religious position is that there does exist an objective reality, some fundamental and crucial aspects of which are not accessible by the ordinary senses, but only through other forms of experience, which would be equally open to you if you had any willingness.

There is no sufficient reason to believe that this is the case. The senses I believe we can agree are a window to reality, but there is no evidence, or sufficient argument why there should be another, so such a further belief would be unjustified.

The willingness part is the willingness to accept premises unsupported by logic, so it's hardly going to dent an argument in which logic is postulated as the sole method of inquiry.

Your assertion in the OP was not, in any case, that the senses were "partly" reliable, but that objective reality is "exactly" as the senses say, such an over-the-top claim that even you ought to recognize what the problem is.

Nothing I have said justifies the conclusion you have drawn from it. I have postulated objective reality, but I have never even mentioned the reliability of the senses issue, because it was irrelevant to my point, and because it is ultimately unresolvable.

I'm 54. What are you, about 5?

Oh... senile dementia. My apologies. I did not wish to mock the geriatric community.

No, you were claiming that if you do not believe objective reality is entirely confined to what the senses reveal, then you were left with pure subjectivism. That is simply not true: the other alternatives, which you are not even able to perceive the possibility of, apparently, are precisely the kinds of viewpoints which you pretend to want to argue against. First you would need some understanding of what the other side actually believes, before you could address them.

That's absolute bollocks. Nothing I have said even remotely resembles that.

You have given a perfect example, again, that you do not have the slightest concept of what the word "courtesy" even means.

I do, but I'm not a slavish adept of it

There is no sufficient reason to believe that this is the case.
The position of the religious people is that there is, indeed, sufficient reason, which you simply have not examined. You pretend to be "arguing" against the position, but you do not show that you even comprehend it.
Nothing I have said justifies the conclusion you have drawn from it.
I was not drawing any conclusion; I was quoting you verbatim, with no interpretive addition.
I have postulated objective reality, but I have never even mentioned the reliability of the senses issue
Re-read your own opening post. You did more than "mention" the issue, you staked out an extreme and indefensible position.
That's absolute bollocks. Nothing I have said even remotely resembles that.
The claim that anyone who does not accept your assumptions is "left with nothing but pure subjectivism" is, again, a direct quote from you, with no interpretive addition.

I do, but I'm not a slavish adept of it
No, you really lack the concept entirely. I am very sorry for you.

Now you are deliberately twisting the initial meaning of what I said. The essence of the novel, just like the essence of religious experience, is purely subjective because one cannot prove any relation of that to any exterior objective sources. The fact that to utter a novel you need words, and to claim to have a religious experience you need words, and the fact that these words occur in reality and can impact on it, does not change the initial fact, nor does it contest my statement.

I never claimed or implied that you need words for a religious experience, or that these words somehow give the experience an objective reality. You made an analogy about a novel. I pointed out that to communicate the subjective essence of a novel, one was forced to use the objective aspects of the novel, i.e. the words. If we relate this to the question I asked, it would imply that the adepts are taught to have these experiences when the practitioners inform them of the objective aspects of the experience.

I asked you a question and you still have yet to answer it. How do mystical orders teach their adepts to have mystical experiences if the entire thing is entirely subjective?

Burden of proof.

My claim is a negative. Yours is the affirmative. It is evident to both of us that mystical experiences are at least subjective, and you propose that it is also originated in the objective. I contest the latter part. You are supporting the affirmative side of the argument, that what we know is subjective draws from the objective, thus the burden of proof is with you.

Bullshit. Plain old fashioned bullshit. I could just as easily claim that you made the positive claim that the experience is wholly subjective while I make the negative claim that it is not.

The difference being that I have provided two criteria by which we can judge that there are some objective aspects to the experience, and in each of these, you have not even answered the most basic questions.

Not at all. It is doubt, as necessitated by the empirical principle. I doubt, and you have to prove.

Last time I tried that, you retreated into solipsism. Remember?

Objective reality informs the subjective experience of that reality, but the subjective existence of that reality does not inform objective reality itself. Thus when something is conceived, it is known to be conceived in the subjective. Until observation confirms that it also occurs in the objective, the default is that it is a subjective experience only. Thus whenever you argue that subjective experience has a source in the objective the burden of proof is on you.

I may be using your terminology wrong, but one thing is clear: you have no evidence for your belief that a mystical experience is entirely subjective.

The position of the religious people is that there is, indeed, sufficient reason, which you simply have not examined. You pretend to be "arguing" against the position, but you do not show that you even comprehend it.

Misguided assumption. I used to be one of those religious people. I understand the concept perfectly. I also understand that I cannot justify it logically, which is why I became an agnostic and then a weak atheist.

I was not drawing any conclusion; I was quoting you verbatim, with no interpretive addition.

Uhm, no. Just no. Because I have never said anything to that effect, or even remotely similar. Are you applying the same faith process here, that I might have said something, and argue against that, as opposed to what I have actually said?

Re-read your own opening post. You did more than "mention" the issue, you staked out an extreme and indefensible position.

Mhmmm. Where?

The claim that anyone who does not accept your assumptions is "left with nothing but pure subjectivism" is, again, a direct quote from you, with no interpretive addition.

So outside of the subjective and the objective what other realities do you know of? And you do realised that rejecting the initial assumption does disqualify any mixture of the two, because we have rejected objectivity completely (that was what I was saying, and which you seem to be unable to comprehend).

No, you really lack the concept entirely. I am very sorry for you.

How quaint.

I never claimed or implied that you need words for a religious experience, or that these words somehow give the experience an objective reality. You made an analogy about a novel. I pointed out that to communicate the subjective essence of a novel, one was forced to use the objective aspects of the novel, i.e. the words. If we relate this to the question I asked, it would imply that the adepts are taught to have these experiences when the practitioners inform them of the objective aspects of the experience.

I asked you a question and you still have yet to answer it. How do mystical orders teach their adepts to have mystical experiences if the entire thing is entirely subjective?

To which I have pointed out that it is a great assumption indeed that their respective experiences are similar to the point where they are related, on the one hand, and the fact that even if this was the case, it still takes a further leap of logic to claim that this objective source is indeed anything objectively meaningful, beyond sharing the secrets of, let's say, masturbation, to a friend.

Bullshit. Plain old fashioned bullshit. I could just as easily claim that you made the positive claim that the experience is wholly subjective while I make the negative claim that it is not.

The difference being that I have provided two criteria by which we can judge that there are some objective aspects to the experience, and in each of these, you have not even answered the most basic questions.

How eloquent and utterly misguided. You are the one saying more about the process than either of us can claim to know, so you are the one who needs to provide evidence for it.

Last time I tried that, you retreated into solipsism. Remember?

False. I merely pointed out that I held the empirical principle as necessitated by the postulate objective reality, and of logic. If you can reference your proof to the basic framework of those assumptions, then please do proceed. If you cannot, then arguing is pointless, because I will not abandon the postulated principles, just to entertain your self-comforting musings about how things are in your view (or ought to be, because you cannot justify your belief that they are indeed so).


I may be using your terminology wrong, but one thing is clear: you have no evidence for your belief that a mystical experience is entirely subjective.

I do not need to. As I said we know our personal subjective experience in grace of the fact that we are self-aware, but anything we discern about the assumed objective reality, we must correlate with the experiences of other agents (and since they are also assumed, ultimately with->) and with consistency with those things we do accept, and can claim to know. Now, we grant the existence of mystical experience, as subjective, because we know of it in our awareness, now we have to establish if it is informed by an external/objective source, if it can tell us anything about that source, and if it is indeed an accurate source of information of the objective, akin to sensory perception. There is no evidence any of these things are the case, and until there is such evidence, there is no reason why we should accept the account that it tells us anything about the objective. So, if you can provide us with that evidence, kindly do, and if you cannot, then accept it is an unfit argument for your position on God, in the context of logic.

To which I have pointed out that it is a great assumption indeed that their respective experiences are similar to the point where they are related, on the one hand, and the fact that even if this was the case, it still takes a further leap of logic to claim that this objective source is indeed anything objectively meaningful, beyond sharing the secrets of, let's say, masturbation, to a friend.

I don't think you can answer my question, can you?

How eloquent and utterly misguided. You are the one saying more about the process than either of us can claim to know, so you are the one who needs to provide evidence for it.

Evidence 1: mystical orders exist and teach their knowledge. This would be impossible if there was not some sort of consensual reality that both teacher and student could access.

Evidence 2: There is a difference between waking and dreaming that the mind is capable of applying to judge its sensory input. When applying this criteria, most mysticis do not describe experiences that are similar to dreaming.

False. I merely pointed out that I held the empirical principle as necessitated by the postulate objective reality, and of logic. If you can reference your proof to the basic framework of those assumptions, then please do proceed. If you cannot, then arguing is pointless, because I will not abandon the postulated principles, just to entertain your self-comforting musings about how things are in your view (or ought to be, because you cannot justify your belief that they are indeed so).

I never went to university. I don't know what "the empirical principle as necessitated by the postulate objective reality" means. Explain how I was wrong in normal english. Just like I explain how you're wrong in normal English.

I tried to get you to admit that you can tell the difference between waking and sleeping. This difference can be used to determine if mystical experiences were more like one or the other. You said that you didn't believe that there was a difference.

Most people can tell that they're awake even before they've had their coffee. Why can't you?

I do not need to. As I said we know our personal subjective experience in grace of the fact that we are self-aware, but anything we discern about the assumed objective reality, we must correlate with the experiences of other agents (and since they are also assumed, ultimately with->) and with consistency with those things we do accept, and can claim to know. Now, we grant the existence of mystical experience, as subjective, because we know of it in our awareness, now we have to establish if it is informed by an external/objective source, if it can tell us anything about that source, and if it is indeed an accurate source of information of the objective, akin to sensory perception. There is no evidence any of these things are the case, and until there is such evidence, there is no reason why we should accept the account that it tells us anything about the objective. So, if you can provide us with that evidence, kindly do, and if you cannot, then accept it is an unfit argument for your position on God, in the context of logic.

I've already posted two pieces of evidence. You have yet to address them.

You have also not provided any evidence for your claim. All you've done is whine about burden of proof.

Look, I don't really care if you can't defend your position. At least make an honest effort at attacking my claim. This is getting boring.

I don't think you can answer my question, can you?

In lay terms: "if something is objective it can be taught" we have both assumed to be true, but you converse it to "if something can be taught, it is objective", which is not a logical inference. The respective logical fallacy is called "affirming the posterior/ulterior".

Evidence 1: mystical orders exist and teach their knowledge. This would be impossible if there was not some sort of consensual reality that both teacher and student could access.

Apart from the point above, that "consensual reality" is not by necessity the same with "objective reality". To say that religion, mystical experience, or anything else is correct because two or more people agree, not only disregards the the fact that there are two or more people who disagrees, but it is a recognised formal logical fallacy called "appeal to popularity".

Evidence 2: There is a difference between waking and dreaming that the mind is capable of applying to judge its sensory input. When applying this criteria, most mysticis do not describe experiences that are similar to dreaming.

I do not describe the experiences I have had under the influence of alcohol or anaesthetics as dreams either. The problem here it is that what these mystics describe is beyond second scrutiny, so their claims are unverifiable, and secondly they are also partisan witnesses.

I never went to university. I don't know what "the empirical principle as necessitated by the postulate objective reality" means. Explain how I was wrong in normal english. Just like I explain how you're wrong in normal English.

We have postulated objective reality. That means it is one of the assumptions we take for granted in this argument. You may agree or disagree, and I may believe it or not, but in the framework of this argument it is a given. If we disregard it, then we are no longer on topic. Now objective reality is different and separated from the subjective experience, and the way we get to know it, whether correctly or incorrectly is through our sensory perception - observation. This sensory perception may or may not be accurate, but that is, ultimately, unknowable, because we do not have any alternative frame of reference - the only way to judge between conflicting sensory input is to verify them through other senses, out of the 5. But whether or not we can ever be correct in our interpretation of the senses is irrelevant as far as observation goes, because we don't have any alternatives. So observation cannot guarantee us truth, but it's the only way we can hope to achieve it. This is the "empirical principle".

You have argued that mystical experience is of equal value as an external means of observation (extra-sensory perception), as the 5 senses. I have argued that none of these 5 senses supports this view. For example, if you see a tree you can go over and touch it, you can hear the leaves in the wind, you can go lick it, and you can smell it if it has flowers. If you feel a presence, on the other hand, not only does it conflict with everything the 5 senses have already told us about the world so far, but you cannot touch it, cannot see it, and cannot hear it etc.

This is not to say that mystical experience is true or not. It can be. But "the empirical principle" cannot confirm it. Why is this a problem? Because the subjective experience contains many concepts that do not occur in reality. Thus, the only way to know reality is to let it speak for itself, through our senses. If we seek to understand what is really the case in reality, we must make the most conservative interpretation possible, and only accept things which we observe. Once we have stopped doing this, we begin to wish things into existence - i.e. we attribute certain things to objective reality in a belief that they are true, when reality does not agree with us, and in some cases blatantly disagrees. Essentially, the only way I can know if there is a blonde in my bedroom is to go have a look, even if I believe there will be a blonde in my bedroom. Now the good thing about this example is that I can go observe it's factual accuracy. Now if we are talking about a fossilised insect in the middle of one of my structural walls, I cannot just observe it - but however hard I believe it is actually there, you have no reason to believe me, and even I have no reason to believe it because I cannot prove it even to myself.

Thus, as we have assumed this reality, the implication is that we can only really know anything about it through our senses. This is not to say we cannot use logic to deduce what might be the case, but even if we come to a conclusion we still have to verify it first (in similar manner, theoretical physics is not considered science, and theories in it are only deemed scientific, once they have been thoroughly observed through experimentation). And now we come to the supernatural. None of the senses can observe it, and furthermore, none of the senses can observe any instances which would necessarily need a supernatural explanation. Thus a belief in the supernatural is not supported by logic, and is not supported by the empiric principle. In fact, many claims about the supernatural have been positively disproved by the empirical principle (e.g. "have you ever observed a human fly, or have ever observed anything which could imply that humans can fly?").

I tried to get you to admit that you can tell the difference between waking and sleeping. This difference can be used to determine if mystical experiences were more like one or the other. You said that you didn't believe that there was a difference.

Most people can tell that they're awake even before they've had their coffee. Why can't you?

I don't believe there is a difference, but you have not read carefully what I have said. We have postulated objective reality - this is the bounds in which we argue. My opinion at this point is irrelevant, because I have granted that there is a difference. If objective reality exists, then it follows that we interact with it in the wake state.

Now why don't you propose how we can tell the difference yourself? I'm feeling quite generous, so I might grant you your own interpretation. However I suspect that there will be a difference between wake and mystical experience state. And since we accept that wake is the primary state in interacting with objective reality, as per the "empiric principle" we must see if we can empirically support the claim that mystical experience is more than simply subjective, and has any claim to objective truth. The only way to support this is through observation, or alternatively, even deduction based on observation, but we must do this, thus correlate it with the other 5 senses first, before we can accept this claim.

I've already posted two pieces of evidence. You have yet to address them.

An argument is not a piece of evidence until it is accepted as valid.

You have also not provided any evidence for your claim. All you've done is whine about burden of proof.

Apart from the axioms we choose based on consensus, everything we claim must be proven to derive from those axioms. "Whining about the burden of proof" is a rigour of logical thought. Otherwise there is no reason to doubt that there is a tea-pot orbiting the Sun, half distance between the Earth and Mars, that there are unicorns in the woods, and that if I jumped off a skyscraper, I can fly.

Look, I don't really care if you can't defend your position. At least make an honest effort at attacking my claim. This is getting boring.

I have. It is an unjustifiable belief which you defend starting from the premise that you are right, and that stuff no-one has a reason to believe exists, do actually exists, and you employ several logical fallacies to support that argument. You claim that there is no reason to believe that what you claim is not true. I have put it to you that something that has not been proven false is not necessarily true, and something that cannot be proven false cannot be proven true either, so belief in it is stubborn ignorance which you cannot hope to justify.

Uhm, no. Just no. Because I have never said anything to that effect, or even remotely similar.
You said, in your opening post:
"Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it."
Are you applying the same faith process here, that I might have said something, and argue against that, as opposed to what I have actually said?
This is what you actually said:
"Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it."
Mhmmm. Where?
In Assumption 1, of your opening post. In case you do not recall it:
"Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it."
So outside of the subjective and the objective what other realities do you know of?
An objective reality, to which the senses are neither an "exact" nor a complete guide.
And you do realised that rejecting the initial assumption does disqualify any mixture of the two, because we have rejected objectivity completely
That is completely false. Rejecting the assumption that the senses are an exact and complete guide to objective reality is not at all the same thing as rejecting objectivity.
(that was what I was saying, and which you seem to be unable to comprehend).
I comprehend completely what you are saying. I am pointing out that it is completely false.

In lay terms: "if something is objective it can be taught" we have both assumed to be true, but you converse it to "if something can be taught, it is objective", which is not a logical inference. The respective logical fallacy is called "affirming the posterior/ulterior".

I never argued that if something can be taught it is entirely objective. I just claimed that for something to be taught, it must be at least partially objective. I can't know your subjective experience, by definition. So, if I know anything of your experience, it must be at least somewhat objective.

Apart from the point above, that "consensual reality" is not by necessity the same with "objective reality". To say that religion, mystical experience, or anything else is correct because two or more people agree, not only disregards the the fact that there are two or more people who disagrees, but it is a recognised formal logical fallacy called "appeal to popularity".

There is no denying that these experiences happen to many people. That is a fact. It is experienced as a communion with the divine. That is also a fact. We know this to be true because it is one of the few common elements of the description that is common to all cultures, times, walks of life, etc.

Now, there are different explanations for these facts. Some are hypotheses that can be tested by scientific means. Some are beliefs that can only be tested with logic. The divine explanation seems to fall more into the latter category than the former. But not entirely. Many beliefs have things that follow from them logically and would leave a trace in the natural world. So some beliefs can be tested with logic and by checking if they are consistent with what we observe.

My beliefs are logical, and seem to be consistent with my observations. The scientific hypotheses that I have brought up earlier do not seem to be complete explanations for the phenomena for the reasons I outlined earlier. They may be 'unjustified beliefs', as you put them, but they seem to be consistent with the data, and seem to be verifiable as far as science can test them, and they also seem to be internally logical.

I do not describe the experiences I have had under the influence of alcohol or anaesthetics as dreams either. The problem here it is that what these mystics describe is beyond second scrutiny, so their claims are unverifiable, and secondly they are also partisan witnesses.

Not entirely. By practicing Zen Buddhism, or some other mystical system (which one can do even as an atheist), you can also experience this, and then you can make up your own mind.

We have postulated objective reality....This is the "empirical principle".

Okay.

You have argued that mystical experience is of equal value as an external means of observation (extra-sensory perception), as the 5 senses. I have argued that none of these 5 senses supports this view. For example, if you see a tree you can go over and touch it, you can hear the leaves in the wind, you can go lick it, and you can smell it if it has flowers. If you feel a presence, on the other hand, not only does it conflict with everything the 5 senses have already told us about the world so far, but you cannot touch it, cannot see it, and cannot hear it etc.

I don't place mystical experiences as being equal to that which is sensed normally. There are obvious differences, as you point out.

This is not to say that mystical experience is true or not. It can be. But "the empirical principle" cannot confirm it. Why is this a problem? Because the subjective experience contains many concepts that do not occur in reality. Thus, the only way to know reality is to let it speak for itself, through our senses.

Okay.

If we seek to understand what is really the case in reality, we must make the most conservative interpretation possible, and only accept things which we observe. Once we have stopped doing this, we begin to wish things into existence - i.e. we attribute certain things to objective reality in a belief that they are true, when reality does not agree with us, and in some cases blatantly disagrees.

We must make the most comprehensive interpretation possible that explains all the observations. Current scientific theories concerning mystical revelations don't explain all the observations, and it would frankly be impossible for scientists as the observations occur on a level that is inaccessible empirically. If I'm right about what you mean by unjustified belief, many attempts to make general statements about the supernatural from an empirical perspective would be unjustified, regardless of whether or not they're positive or negative.

Thus, as we have assumed this reality, the implication is that we can only really know anything about it through our senses. This is not to say we cannot use logic to deduce what might be the case, but even if we come to a conclusion we still have to verify it first (in similar manner, theoretical physics is not considered science, and theories in it are only deemed scientific, once they have been thoroughly observed through experimentation). And now we come to the supernatural. None of the senses can observe it, and furthermore, none of the senses can observe any instances which would necessarily need a supernatural explanation. Thus a belief in the supernatural is not supported by logic, and is not supported by the empiric principle. In fact, many claims about the supernatural have been positively disproved by the empirical principle (e.g. "have you ever observed a human fly, or have ever observed anything which could imply that humans can fly?").

I see how the supernatural is not supported by the empiric principle, but you don't seem to explain how the supernatural can not be supported by logic.

I don't believe there is a difference, but you have not read carefully what I have said. We have postulated objective reality - this is the bounds in which we argue. My opinion at this point is irrelevant, because I have granted that there is a difference. If objective reality exists, then it follows that we interact with it in the wake state.

Now why don't you propose how we can tell the difference yourself? I'm feeling quite generous, so I might grant you your own interpretation. However I suspect that there will be a difference between wake and mystical experience state. And since we accept that wake is the primary state in interacting with objective reality, as per the "empiric principle" we must see if we can empirically support the claim that mystical experience is more than simply subjective, and has any claim to objective truth. The only way to support this is through observation, or alternatively, even deduction based on observation, but we must do this, thus correlate it with the other 5 senses first, before we can accept this claim.

First of all, people who are dreaming or are on hallucinogenics are never surprised by what they experience, even if it is illogical. No one ever stubs their toe in a dream. No one is surprised to see their dog morph into some dead acquaintance. people tripping on acid see some sort of order to the world that makes everything finally make sense. Mystics don't have that. It's a total WTF scenario, one of constant surprise and challenge. The only place that the human mind experiences such surprise, such novelty, is from sources outside of itself.

Secondly, hallucinations, insanity and dreams contain information that is impossible to reconcile with experience and the waking world. Mystic experiences do not contain such information. For example, it is described as being aware of the connections beyond the apparent separation. But it does not inform the mystic that these connections are real while our senses are lying. The experience informs the mystic with an awareness of a connection that is consistent with the apparent separation.

Thirdly, the experiences are apparently repeatable and consistent from person to person. People don't share dreams, hallucinations, or delusions. Sometimes one person can have recurring delusions/dreams/hallucinations, but that is not the case here.

An argument is not a piece of evidence until it is accepted as valid.

You want to call them arguments instead of evidence? Okay. Whatever. You still haven't addressed them.

Apart from the axioms we choose based on consensus, everything we claim must be proven to derive from those axioms. "Whining about the burden of proof" is a rigour of logical thought. Otherwise there is no reason to doubt that there is a tea-pot orbiting the Sun, half distance between the Earth and Mars, that there are unicorns in the woods, and that if I jumped off a skyscraper, I can fly.

Or a claim that mystical experiences are entirely subjective. No one seems to be in a hurry to prove that this claim derives from anything.

I have. It is an unjustifiable belief which you defend starting from the premise that you are right, and that stuff no-one has a reason to believe exists, do actually exists, and you employ several logical fallacies to support that argument. You claim that there is no reason to believe that what you claim is not true. I have put it to you that something that has not been proven false is not necessarily true, and something that cannot be proven false cannot be proven true either, so belief in it is stubborn ignorance which you cannot hope to justify.

Actually, you seem to be labouring under some misconceptions, but I don't really care. This last post of yours was good. If you get past all of your assumptions about what I'm really arguing, we can have some real fun. A lot of that is my fault, probably. Like I said, I have had no formal education in this, so I have to write it all in layman's terms. (Thanks for the explanations, by the way)

I realise some of what I'm claiming can't be proven true or false, but if I'm right that these experiences are at least somewhat objective, that part can be looked at empirically, and see if our observations match up.

The Ontological Argument is wishing things into existence and the Cosmological argument randomly assumes there can be no infinite regression. Is that not a refutation?

No, your uninformed flippant descriptions of the arguments in question are not refutations.

You said, in your opening post:
"Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it."

This is what you actually said:
"Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it."

In Assumption 1, of your opening post. In case you do not recall it:
"Assumptions:

1) What we call "reality" exists, in the exact way as we perceive it."

An objective reality, to which the senses are neither an "exact" nor a complete guide.

That is completely false. Rejecting the assumption that the senses are an exact and complete guide to objective reality is not at all the same thing as rejecting objectivity.

I comprehend completely what you are saying. I am pointing out that it is completely false.

You were criticising my ulterior comments, and thus I was responding from those. If you would comprehend the concept of an axiom, and that they are taken for granted in the argument (whether or not we agree with them) we wouldn't even have this discussion. Any argument, whatsoever can be refuted by attacking its axioms, but this sort of dispute cannot be resolved. So if you have no other objection to the argument, other than "oh your axioms are wrong" (thank you very much arsehole, but I think you'll find axioms cannot be debated by their very nature), I will ignore any further input from you.

I never argued that if something can be taught it is entirely objective. I just claimed that for something to be taught, it must be at least partially objective. I can't know your subjective experience, by definition. So, if I know anything of your experience, it must be at least somewhat objective.

That doesn't really follow. I can teach you what a unicorn is, but does that imply that a unicorn objectively exists? No.

There is no denying that these experiences happen to many people. That is a fact.

If we assume all these experiences are related (which, again, I do not concede), does this mean that they reflect objective reality?

It is experienced as a communion with the divine. That is also a fact.

No, this is unverified, and a leap of logic. Plus this divine hasn't eve been defined.

We know this to be true because it is one of the few common elements of the description that is common to all cultures, times, walks of life, etc.

Again the same fallacy. We know the concept "no" exists in all cultures, times, walks of life etc., but that this mean that the concept "no" is an objective fact of the world? It is a cultural artefact, and there is no reason to believe mystical experience is anything more until verified.

Now, there are different explanations for these facts. Some are hypotheses that can be tested by scientific means. Some are beliefs that can only be tested with logic. The divine explanation seems to fall more into the latter category than the former. But not entirely. Many beliefs have things that follow from them logically and would leave a trace in the natural world. So some beliefs can be tested with logic and by checking if they are consistent with what we observe.

So can you scientifically prove or logically prove, or observe that which you support (that mystical experience is a link to God)?

My beliefs are logical, and seem to be consistent with my observations. The scientific hypotheses that I have brought up earlier do not seem to be complete explanations for the phenomena for the reasons I outlined earlier. They may be 'unjustified beliefs', as you put them, but they seem to be consistent with the data, and seem to be verifiable as far as science can test them, and they also seem to be internally logical.

Insanity is internally logical - that doesn't mean to say a cosmology of the insane is representative of objective reality. You said you can scientifically test these claims. Can you link me to some relevant studies? If I find them satisfactory I will accept mystical experience. But if your only argument is that it does not conflict with what you know, then it is indeed an unjustified belief. For example, that there may be a cat in my garden does not conflict with anything I know (I know I have a garden, and I know some neighbours have cats) but it is not necessarily true, so my belief that that is the case is unjustified.

If you grant that your beliefs are indeed "unjustified beliefs" as defined, then we have come to an agreement. I have said it time and time again, that the contents of that belief may or may not be true, but this is not what we are arguing about. This is about justifying such beliefs.

Not entirely. By practicing Zen Buddhism, or some other mystical system (which one can do even as an atheist), you can also experience this, and then you can make up your own mind.

Then why would the specific interpretation that this is a gateway to the divine be true? Even if we forget the previous problem, and suppose there is an objective supernatural aspect beyond the particular experience for the sake of the argument, then why would your interpretation of it, as God, be true, or why would a Hindu's interpretation of it as Brahman be true?

I don't place mystical experiences as being equal to that which is sensed normally. There are obvious differences, as you point out.

Okay.

We must make the most comprehensive interpretation possible that explains all the observations. Current scientific theories concerning mystical revelations don't explain all the observations, and it would frankly be impossible for scientists as the observations occur on a level that is inaccessible empirically. If I'm right about what you mean by unjustified belief, many attempts to make general statements about the supernatural from an empirical perspective would be unjustified, regardless of whether or not they're positive or negative.

Oh I see now. I think we differ in our method, quite fundamentally. I apply the method of observation in the most conservative mode possible, as all that can be held as true is the highest common denominator of conflicting experiences, whereas you seem to embrace a sort of lowest common multiple (if you'll excuse the analogy). My interpretation of evidence is exclusivist: I hold as truth whatever is consistent throughout all observation, and what is not, is held as unknown (crucially, not necessarily false), until we find an explanation through more observation. Your interpretation seems to be inclusivist: you will adopt the simplest explanation that explains every observable thing as being true, and consistent with that explanation.

The difference between the two can also be represented by the logical discourse they use. My approach is deductive, whereas yours is inductive. Now the problem with this is that our knowledge and observation are both limited. Given this, with my method you can draw limited conclusions with certainty, whereas with your method you can draw extensive conclusions with mere probability (which decreases as you follow it through further). I prefer mine because that way I can justify all my beliefs. With yours you will inevitably have some beliefs you cannot justify. Now the problem with this is, of course, that those unjustifiable beliefs are equally likely to be false as yo be true.


For example: if given the number string 2, 3, 5 ... (also given that there are more numbers with unknown values following)

Following my method, I can say that laws governing this set of strings are that they are prime, and that the difference between consecutive members are +1 and +2. I therefore suspend any judgement about the numbers following, though I can speculate, as long as I don't hold it as truth.

Following your method, it is apparent that this is a string of prime numbers. It does not conflict with the current data that therefore all subsequent numbers in the string are prime, thus you may believe that they are. Now you may indeed be true, but you may equally be false.

The immediately following two numbers can be (among other things):
7, 11 - if the underlying rule is that they are all prime numbers (in this case you would have been incidentally correct)
8, 12 - if the underlying rule is that consecutive members of the group are equal to + 1 more than the difference between the last two
9, 17 - if the underlying rule is that consecutive members of the group are equal to + 2 times the difference between the last two (increments of the powers of 2: +1, +2, +4, +8, etc.)
... And many others.

This is why I keep to my conservative interpretation.

I see how the supernatural is not supported by the empiric principle, but you don't seem to explain how the supernatural can not be supported by logic.

As per the example above, you are extrapolating general conclusions from limited data, hence you draw logical conclusions that do not necessarily follow, but merely seem to.

First of all, people who are dreaming or are on hallucinogenics are never surprised by what they experience, even if it is illogical. No one ever stubs their toe in a dream. No one is surprised to see their dog morph into some dead acquaintance. people tripping on acid see some sort of order to the world that makes everything finally make sense. Mystics don't have that. It's a total WTF scenario, one of constant surprise and challenge. The only place that the human mind experiences such surprise, such novelty, is from sources outside of itself.

I'm not too sure. I've had some pretty extreme WTF dreams. (I don't do drugs so I couldn't tell you too much about that)

Secondly, hallucinations, insanity and dreams contain information that is impossible to reconcile with experience and the waking world. Mystic experiences do not contain such information. For example, it is described as being aware of the connections beyond the apparent separation. But it does not inform the mystic that these connections are real while our senses are lying. The experience informs the mystic with an awareness of a connection that is consistent with the apparent separation.

Again, I'm not too sure. I've had dreams that made me believe I've done certain things for a few days, until someone told me I haven't actually done anything of that sort, ever.

Thirdly, the experiences are apparently repeatable and consistent from person to person. People don't share dreams, hallucinations, or delusions. Sometimes one person can have recurring delusions/dreams/hallucinations, but that is not the case here.

Well I agree about recurring dreams, hell, even episodic dreams (in my sleep seems to be the only place where I come in contact with soap operas :tongue:), but I think it is quite a stretch to claim that these experiences are consistent from person to person, for the simple fact that there is, and can be, no arbitration. So you cannot compare them objectively, merely take from accounts. Now these accounts may concur because of some underlying reality, but it is equally likely that they concur because language cannot describe them succinctly enough to describe actual differences, so the same fuzzy language seems to be recurring in explaining, what could be, entirely different experiences. Furthermore, if someone has heard such an account before he actually expressed his, he might borrow the same language, because it seems to fit, but he cannot know if the similarity is indeed there.

You want to call them arguments instead of evidence? Okay. Whatever. You still haven't addressed them.

I believed I had. What did I not address to your satisfaction then?

Or a claim that mystical experiences are entirely subjective. No one seems to be in a hurry to prove that this claim derives from anything.

It is the lowest common denominator account, as explained above. You can find it on wiki under the title "Occam's Razor", for further details.

Entirely subjective does not add anything to the account of the experience that we do not know - any perception is primarily subjective, and until we can verify it against other objective arbiters we cannot say more about it. Once we have verified it then we can claim it is objectively inspired. Everything we conceive of is primarily subjective, and by "entirely subjective" that is all I have said - that we have yet to verify it through objective arbitration. Once we have done that, I am perfectly willing to accept it as objectively inspired - provided, of course, I agree with the way it has been proven (not all science is good science).

Actually, you seem to be labouring under some misconceptions, but I don't really care.

It is entirely possible, I am, after all, only human, but I do try to justify all my conceptions, so if you can argue against said justifications in a satisfactory manner, I am more than willing to change them.

This last post of yours was good. If you get past all of your assumptions about what I'm really arguing, we can have some real fun.

Well see, as I was saying earlier, in my private life, I am a solipsist, so I don't really hold any assumptions as such. But when engaging in argument you have to argue from something, so the default assumptions I employ are objective reality (because it would be pointless to argue with most people without assuming this), the empirical principle and logic - occasionally also science, but less often than not. There might be others I might employ unconsciously, and I would be grateful if you could point them out, see if they are justifiable from the first three.

A lot of that is my fault, probably. Like I said, I have had no formal education in this, so I have to write it all in layman's terms. (Thanks for the explanations, by the way)

No problem. I'm not studying philosophy either, though I am seriously considering changing my course to this. Now I'm 1st year International Relations with a quarter Economics.

I realise some of what I'm claiming can't be proven true or false, but if I'm right that these experiences are at least somewhat objective, that part can be looked at empirically, and see if our observations match up.

And I am perfectly happy to concede that, but you can see that my method does not allow me to accept any such claim until satisfactory proven. Until then I am bound to be agnostic,strictly speaking, on the matter, and rejecting them for all practical considerations.

No, your uninformed flippant descriptions of the arguments in question are not refutations.

Well I would be more than happy to refute said arguments, if you were to put the forward, but I have noticed that Soheran is doing a pretty good job of that in another thread, so I don't think there would be any point in extending that here. But if you will, I will amuse you.

That doesn't really follow. I can teach you what a unicorn is, but does that imply that a unicorn objectively exists? No.

But unicorns aren't experiences. You can't teach me how to experience a unicorn. Mystic unity is an experience.

If we assume all these experiences are related (which, again, I do not concede), does this mean that they reflect objective reality?

It implies it, but I think it would be safer to say that such experiences might be, and that we should see if we can verify it. There are elements to these experiences that can be examined using intersubjective verifiability.

No, this is unverified, and a leap of logic. Plus this divine hasn't eve been defined.

Again the same fallacy. We know the concept "no" exists in all cultures, times, walks of life etc., but that this mean that the concept "no" is an objective fact of the world? It is a cultural artefact, and there is no reason to believe mystical experience is anything more until verified.

I am not discussing conclusions at this point. I am only discussing how people describe the experience. in other words, I am not saying it is a communion with the divine. I am saying that, universally, mystics say it is one.

So can you scientifically prove or logically prove, or observe that which you support (that mystical experience is a link to God)?

You can't prove or disprove anything about the supernatural with science. If we assume that supernatural or divine things are internally consistent, we can judge them using logic. As for observations, while we can't directly observe someone else's mystical experiences, we can observe our own, and we can look for observable evidence that would logically follow from our claims.

Insanity is internally logical - that doesn't mean to say a cosmology of the insane is representative of objective reality. You said you can scientifically test these claims. Can you link me to some relevant studies? If I find them satisfactory I will accept mystical experience. But if your only argument is that it does not conflict with what you know, then it is indeed an unjustified belief. For example, that there may be a cat in my garden does not conflict with anything I know (I know I have a garden, and I know some neighbours have cats) but it is not necessarily true, so my belief that that is the case is unjustified.

Insanity may be internally logical, but it is not also consistent with science and observation. My beliefs are logical and consistent with science and observation, or seem to be. I'm sure they're wrong somewhere, which is why I get into debates like this.

I'm not sure what you mean when I said that these claims can be tested. I think that if there is a divine interacting with the natural world, we should be able to look at the non-supernatural aspects of these interactions using the tools of science. I don't know if any studies like this have been made. Hopefully our science dollars are being spent on better things like finiding cures for lethal childhood diseases.

If you grant that your beliefs are indeed "unjustified beliefs" as defined, then we have come to an agreement. I have said it time and time again, that the contents of that belief may or may not be true, but this is not what we are arguing about. This is about justifying such beliefs.

I hope we haven't agreed. I'm enjoying this debate.;)

Then why would the specific interpretation that this is a gateway to the divine be true? Even if we forget the previous problem, and suppose there is an objective supernatural aspect beyond the particular experience for the sake of the argument, then why would your interpretation of it, as God, be true, or why would a Hindu's interpretation of it as Brahman be true?

All mystics interpret their observations through cultural biases. In fact, all people do this. Even scientists do this when interpreting data. I think interpretations have elements of truth in them, but they do not contain the whole truth. I do not think any one interpretation is true.

Oh I see now. I think we differ in our method, quite fundamentally. I apply the method of observation in the most conservative mode possible, as all that can be held as true is the highest common denominator of conflicting experiences, whereas you seem to embrace a sort of lowest common multiple (if you'll excuse the analogy). My interpretation of evidence is exclusivist: I hold as truth whatever is consistent throughout all observation, and what is not, is held as unknown (crucially, not necessarily false), until we find an explanation through more observation. Your interpretation seems to be inclusivist: you will adopt the simplest explanation that explains every observable thing as being true, and consistent with that explanation.

My parents are scientists. I was taught to always believe what I sense, and that ideas and theories must be changed to suit the evidence of your senses. Consequently, I have a hard time ignoring anomalous bits of data that don't fit neatly. Either the theory is wrong, or my senses are wrong. But if I test my senses as far as am able, and they seem to check out, I will assume that our understanding or theory is wrong.

The difference between the two can also be represented by the logical discourse they use. My approach is deductive, whereas yours is inductive. Now the problem with this is that our knowledge and observation are both limited. Given this, with my method you can draw limited conclusions with certainty, whereas with your method you can draw extensive conclusions with mere probability (which decreases as you follow it through further). I prefer mine because that way I can justify all my beliefs. With yours you will inevitably have some beliefs you cannot justify. Now the problem with this is, of course, that those unjustifiable beliefs are equally likely to be false as yo be true.

I'm not sure about that. By ignoring something that seems inconsistent, you may unknowingly exclude pertinent data that affects your 'certain' conclusions. For example, if we saw that light sometimes behaved like a wave and sometimes like a particle, you could say that light is certainly neither, while I would make the claim that light is probably something that can act as both.

As per the example above, you are extrapolating general conclusions from limited data, hence you draw logical conclusions that do not necessarily follow, but merely seem to.

That's different. Any lack of support for the supernatural from my use of logic could be due to the fact that I have no training in logic. In other words, it could be that the supernatural could be supported by logic, and I'm just doing a bad job of it. I want to know why it would be impossible for anyone, even someone very smart who was well-trained in logic, to use logic in support of the supernatural.

I'm not too sure. I've had some pretty extreme WTF dreams. (I don't do drugs so I couldn't tell you too much about that)

We all have had WTF dreams, but we don't realise that they are until after we wake up. Mystics experience the WTF while in the state.

Again, I'm not too sure. I've had dreams that made me believe I've done certain things for a few days, until someone told me I haven't actually done anything of that sort, ever.

Exactly. At some point, you found information that conflicts with the information presented in your altered state. Mystics never receive empirical information that is conflict with the information provided in the state of mystic unity.

Well I agree about recurring dreams, hell, even episodic dreams (in my sleep seems to be the only place where I come in contact with soap operas :tongue:), but I think it is quite a stretch to claim that these experiences are consistent from person to person, for the simple fact that there is, and can be, no arbitration. So you cannot compare them objectively, merely take from accounts. Now these accounts may concur because of some underlying reality, but it is equally likely that they concur because language cannot describe them succinctly enough to describe actual differences, so the same fuzzy language seems to be recurring in explaining, what could be, entirely different experiences. Furthermore, if someone has heard such an account before he actually expressed his, he might borrow the same language, because it seems to fit, but he cannot know if the similarity is indeed there.

It might be that it has to do with fuzzy language, but we have no evidence to support such a notion. So that might be an unjustified belief.

I believed I had. What did I not address to your satisfaction then?

Oh, now we're in the thick of it. Don't worry.

It is the lowest common denominator account, as explained above. You can find it on wiki under the title "Occam's Razor", for further details.

Entirely subjective does not add anything to the account of the experience that we do not know - any perception is primarily subjective, and until we can verify it against other objective arbiters we cannot say more about it. Once we have verified it then we can claim it is objectively inspired. Everything we conceive of is primarily subjective, and by "entirely subjective" that is all I have said - that we have yet to verify it through objective arbitration. Once we have done that, I am perfectly willing to accept it as objectively inspired - provided, of course, I agree with the way it has been proven (not all science is good science).

Occam's razor does not describe reality. So if we're assuming that these experiences are subjective just because it is more parsimonious to think of them that way, that's fine, but it doesn't seem more logical or more consistent with our experiences. It's just tidier.

Well see, as I was saying earlier, in my private life, I am a solipsist, so I don't really hold any assumptions as such. But when engaging in argument you have to argue from something, so the default assumptions I employ are objective reality (because it would be pointless to argue with most people without assuming this), the empirical principle and logic - occasionally also science, but less often than not. There might be others I might employ unconsciously, and I would be grateful if you could point them out, see if they are justifiable from the first three.

I don't have any assumptions either, knowingly.

And I am perfectly happy to concede that, but you can see that my method does not allow me to accept any such claim until satisfactory proven. Until then I am bound to be agnostic,strictly speaking, on the matter, and rejecting them for all practical considerations.

If we're going to be practical, we might as well stop talking about god and learn how to install plumbing.

Who cares?
I mean: who bloody cares?
Who fucking GODdamn cares?
Who CARES, I mean.

Who cares?
I mean: who bloody cares?
Who fucking GODdamn cares?
Who CARES, I mean.

Well I'm glad you're entertained. Welcome to the thread :p

But unicorns aren't experiences. You can't teach me how to experience a unicorn. Mystic unity is an experience.

That does not refute my point. The mystic thing is an experience, but conveying it follows the same process with convey information about unicorns. This was to counter your proposition that if it can be conveyed it has to have some underlying objective reality. As per my example, this is simply not the case.

It implies it, but I think it would be safer to say that such experiences might be, and that we should see if we can verify it. There are elements to these experiences that can be examined using intersubjective verifiability.

My mood swings imply I'm being possessed, certain people find me outright frightening (I've even been described as having a cold, dark aura), and certain "mystics" and religious folk would verify this as true. On the other hand, if I were to end up in the hands of a psychiatrist, I would most likely be drugged for years. I don't think there is any difference between the first description and your description of mystical experience, nor am I too convinced by psychiatry. Yet, I'm fairly certain neither account is really anywhere near the truth. It certainly is possible that these experiences might be all they claim to be, but there is no sufficient* evidence why this should be the case.

*Now that you say that you are not too familiar with philosophy, I think I should clarify that by "sufficient" we do not mean quantity of evidence, but rather at least one irrefutable argument which necessarily implies (beyond reasonable doubt) that one conclusion follows from the premise/evidence.

I am not discussing conclusions at this point. I am only discussing how people describe the experience. in other words, I am not saying it is a communion with the divine. I am saying that, universally, mystics say it is one.

Of course, but suppose you were a tea-totaller. If I and everyone you meet would tell you that alcohol enables you to see through clothes, would you be justified in believing us? Surely you would have to examine it first, yourself.

You can't prove or disprove anything about the supernatural with science.

And this is the crux of the matter. Should we believe in something we cannot observe with rigour?

If we assume that supernatural or divine things are internally consistent, we can judge them using logic.

More or less. See the problem is that "All truth is consistent" does not imply "All that is consistent is truth" (same affirming the posterior fallacy). To exemplify: As you have already conceded, insanity is internally consistent, as is normal experience. They cannot be representative of objective truth at the same time, so at least one of them is false - so at least in one case falsehood is internally consistent. This is why we need the empirical principle, and why logic alone does not suffice.

As for observations, while we can't directly observe someone else's mystical experiences, we can observe our own, and we can look for observable evidence that would logically follow from our claims.

Yes. Now can we actually find sufficient* (see above) evidence for our claims? That is the question.

Insanity may be internally logical, but it is not also consistent with science and observation. My beliefs are logical and consistent with science and observation, or seem to be. I'm sure they're wrong somewhere, which is why I get into debates like this.

As per above, consistency is not a reliable indication, on its own. If something is inconsistent, then it is false, but if something is consistent it does not tell us if it is either true or false. The problem with such beliefs is not that they are consistent, but rather that they no not necessarily follow from observation (observation does not provide sufficient* reason to believe them) - you need to make leaps of faith and logic, and the sole defence is that they are not inconsistent. This alone is not a satisfactory logical criterion of truth, which is why it is illogical to entertain such beliefs. This is what an unjustifiable belief is. And as I have said, it may or may not be true, but until you can know for sure, that is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what you mean when I said that these claims can be tested. I think that if there is a divine interacting with the natural world, we should be able to look at the non-supernatural aspects of these interactions using the tools of science. I don't know if any studies like this have been made.

Then our sole defence is lack of inconsistency.

Hopefully our science dollars are being spent on better things like finiding cures for lethal childhood diseases.

I agree, to a point. That point would be, where people kill each other over theological disputes. This is why this is important: because it is just so stupid, inhumane and absurd that a child should be saved from leukaemia, only to be killed for being a Shi'ite in a hospital in a Sunni district, when a car-bomb goes off. (this example is of course hyperbolic, yet still sadly plausible).

I hope we haven't agreed. I'm enjoying this debate.;)

Hedonism is also my excuse :tongue:

All mystics interpret their observations through cultural biases. In fact, all people do this. Even scientists do this when interpreting data. I think interpretations have elements of truth in them, but they do not contain the whole truth. I do not think any one interpretation is true.

Is it then not equally plausible to attribute a divine source to an experience, as a consequence of cultural conditioning, in its interpretation?

My parents are scientists. I was taught to always believe what I sense, and that ideas and theories must be changed to suit the evidence of your senses. Consequently, I have a hard time ignoring anomalous bits of data that don't fit neatly. Either the theory is wrong, or my senses are wrong. But if I test my senses as far as am able, and they seem to check out, I will assume that our understanding or theory is wrong.

Anomalous data is what changes and enhances our knowledge, provided we interpret it correctly. Yet to abandon logical rigour, so we can accommodate it as soon as we discover it, might be jumping to conclusion and derailing us from the actual truth of the matter (once we have a sufficient explanation for anomalous data - e.g. God is a sufficient explanation of everything, it is easy to abandon the quest for real, actual truth).

I'm not sure about that. By ignoring something that seems inconsistent, you may unknowingly exclude pertinent data that affects your 'certain' conclusions. For example, if we saw that light sometimes behaved like a wave and sometimes like a particle, you could say that light is certainly neither, while I would make the claim that light is probably something that can act as both.

You are not ignoring it. You are classing it as "unexplained", and look for a sufficient explanation. There is a huge difference. If you settle for the immediate answer, which accommodates it, without proving either that the explanation withstands scrutiny (the example of God - who is at the moment beyond scrutiny) or that it necessitates what you observe, then you have an unjustified belief, and a fairly high chance of being wrong.

That's different. Any lack of support for the supernatural from my use of logic could be due to the fact that I have no training in logic. In other words, it could be that the supernatural could be supported by logic, and I'm just doing a bad job of it. I want to know why it would be impossible for anyone, even someone very smart who was well-trained in logic, to use logic in support of the supernatural.

Well philosophers have been at it for a few millennia now - at this point the reasonable position is scepticism, until further notice.

We all have had WTF dreams, but we don't realise that they are until after we wake up. Mystics experience the WTF while in the state.

Arguably. From all I've heard, meditation and state of wake aren't exactly the same, but I wouldn't know.:$

Exactly. At some point, you found information that conflicts with the information presented in your altered state. Mystics never receive empirical information that is conflict with the information provided in the state of mystic unity.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything. They might be universally deluded for all we know :tongue:

It might be that it has to do with fuzzy language, but we have no evidence to support such a notion. So that might be an unjustified belief.

Oh come on. By now you should know that scepticism is the default, thus affirmative beliefs always hold the burden of proof.

Oh, now we're in the thick of it. Don't worry.

:D

Occam's razor does not describe reality. So if we're assuming that these experiences are subjective just because it is more parsimonious to think of them that way, that's fine, but it doesn't seem more logical or more consistent with our experiences. It's just tidier.

The fact of the matter is that it is more logical, as per scepticism (the idea that all positive affirmative claims must be proven first, before we are justified in believing them). That is not to say anything about truth, but logical discourse does include this.

I don't have any assumptions either, knowingly.

Well, one of them seems that a view can only be challenged with another view. A view can be challenged on its own, and if we refute it, we enter a state of sceptic agnosticism on the subject.

If we're going to be practical, we might as well stop talking about god and learn how to install plumbing.

Well should I then believe all religious dogma, just to be on the safe side, until I can disprove all its claims? They are still unjustifiable beliefs at this point, and if we embrace logic, we are losing intellectual integrity if we concede to Pascal's wager.

Any argument, whatsoever can be refuted by attacking its axioms
Exactly.
but this sort of dispute cannot be resolved.
Sure it can. If the premises of the argument are shown to be false, then the argument is worthless for proving anything, even if the conclusion accidentally happened to be true. Now what you appeared to be doing was to say "I don't, myself, agree to these assumptions, but religious people do": but that, itself, was a false assertion.
I will ignore any further input from you.
That's probably not true, either :D

That does not refute my point. The mystic thing is an experience, but conveying it follows the same process with convey information about unicorns. This was to counter your proposition that if it can be conveyed it has to have some underlying objective reality. As per my example, this is simply not the case.

But experiencing "information about unicorns" is different from experiencing "unicorns". I can show you how to experience "information about mystical experiences" and I can also show you how to experience "mystical experiences", but I can't show you how to experience "unicorns".

*Now that you say that you are not too familiar with philosophy, I think I should clarify that by "sufficient" we do not mean quantity of evidence, but rather at least one irrefutable argument which necessarily implies (beyond reasonable doubt) that one conclusion follows from the premise/evidence.

Can you give me an example of this?

Of course, but suppose you were a tea-totaller. If I and everyone you meet would tell you that alcohol enables you to see through clothes, would you be justified in believing us? Surely you would have to examine it first, yourself.

Well, there's two things here: first of all, such a claim would be inconsistent with what we know about optics. Mystical experiences are not inconsistent with scientific data. Secondly, if every drunk told me that, I'd probably guess that I should get drunk and verify it.

And this is the crux of the matter. Should we believe in something we cannot observe with rigour?

Whether or not we should is up to you, as far as I can tell. The truth is that we do, all the time. On a practical level, we should examine our beliefs with as much rigour as possible.

More or less. See the problem is that "All truth is consistent" does not imply "All that is consistent is truth" (same affirming the posterior fallacy). To exemplify: As you have already conceded, insanity is internally consistent, as is normal experience. They cannot be representative of objective truth at the same time, so at least one of them is false - so at least in one case falsehood is internally consistent. This is why we need the empirical principle, and why logic alone does not suffice.

Sure. And if we do find something that is internally inconsistent, we don't have to bother with the empirical principle and logic, because we know it's wrong.

Yes. Now can we actually find sufficient* (see above) evidence for our claims? That is the question.

If you don't mind, I want to wait for your example before touching on this.

As per above, consistency is not a reliable indication, on its own. If something is inconsistent, then it is false, but if something is consistent it does not tell us if it is either true or false. The problem with such beliefs is not that they are consistent, but rather that they no not necessarily follow from observation (observation does not provide sufficient* reason to believe them) - you need to make leaps of faith and logic, and the sole defence is that they are not inconsistent. This alone is not a satisfactory logical criterion of truth, which is why it is illogical to entertain such beliefs. This is what an unjustifiable belief is. And as I have said, it may or may not be true, but until you can know for sure, that is irrelevant.

My point was that my beliefs are more than just internally consistent. They are also consistent with my experiences and current scientific knowledge.

Then our sole defence is lack of inconsistency.

I thought it was impossible to prove things true in nature, that you could only prove them false. Karl Popper was the guy's name, I think.


Is it then not equally plausible to attribute a divine source to an experience, as a consequence of cultural conditioning, in its interpretation?

That would make sense if some cultures attributed it to the divine and some did not, but that is not the case. People from all cultures attribute it to the divine.

Anomalous data is what changes and enhances our knowledge, provided we interpret it correctly. Yet to abandon logical rigour, so we can accommodate it as soon as we discover it, might be jumping to conclusion and derailing us from the actual truth of the matter (once we have a sufficient explanation for anomalous data - e.g. God is a sufficient explanation of everything, it is easy to abandon the quest for real, actual truth).

Well, I don't believe anything with certainty. Like you said, my method of looking at it implies that things can be known in terms of probabilities. Like gravity. I know with a very strong probability that it'll still work the same tomorrow, but I also know that gravity didn't always act this way according to some theories about the big bang. So to accomodate this anomalous data, I have to admit that my knowledge of gravity is uncertain, and that there are more questions to be asked. So you keep asking questions until all the anomalies are resolved. But you don't accept the alternate answers as true right away.

You are not ignoring it. You are classing it as "unexplained", and look for a sufficient explanation. There is a huge difference. If you settle for the immediate answer, which accommodates it, without proving either that the explanation withstands scrutiny (the example of God - who is at the moment beyond scrutiny) or that it necessitates what you observe, then you have an unjustified belief, and a fairly high chance of being wrong.

I don't settle for the immediate answer. My explanation can not be scrutinised from a scientific viewpoint, as science makes the assumption that the supernatural does not happen, and is therefore ill-equipped to test for the supernatural. But the idea that it is divine in origin is not beyond scrutiny entirely. We can still attack it with logic. Like, if we can logically show that if it is divine then it has to be associated with Invisible Pink Unicorns (to use an absurd example), and then we show that no IPUs are involved, then we can safely say that it is not divine.

Well philosophers have been at it for a few millennia now - at this point the reasonable position is scepticism, until further notice.

And I am skeptical about the claim that such experiences are purely subjective. What I am asking here is if there is any reason to believe that we can't use logic to test claims about the divine like in my example above with the IPUs.

Arguably. From all I've heard, meditation and state of wake aren't exactly the same, but I wouldn't know.:$

No. They aren't the same. There's differences too. But in terms of them providing novelty, both states share this attribute.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything. They might be universally deluded for all we know :tongue:

They might be, but we have no evidence to believe that.

Oh come on. By now you should know that scepticism is the default, thus affirmative beliefs always hold the burden of proof.

But saying it is caused by fuzzy language is a positive claim, and I can simply decide to be skeptical about it. I could simply hold the position that is unknown why they all claim to have similar experiences. This would then shift the burden of proof onto you. I don't really care, though, as it my beliefs that I want to rigourously examine. Not yours.

The fact of the matter is that it is more logical, as per scepticism (the idea that all positive affirmative claims must be proven first, before we are justified in believing them). That is not to say anything about truth, but logical discourse does include this.

I agree. I just live in the real world as opposed to the one where Occam's razor describes reality. And that's what I like to discuss.

Well, one of them seems that a view can only be challenged with another view. A view can be challenged on its own, and if we refute it, we enter a state of sceptic agnosticism on the subject.

Not really. The view is challenged by the new information, not the new view. We create a new view in our head that explains the new info, and then roll it around to see if it fits.

Well should I then believe all religious dogma, just to be on the safe side, until I can disprove all its claims? They are still unjustifiable beliefs at this point, and if we embrace logic, we are losing intellectual integrity if we concede to Pascal's wager.

No. I just found it funny to speak of practical considerations when we're having a debate that isn't really relevant to anybody outside of those who care about mystical experiences. Besides, the point is moot as these sort of studies aren't going to be done. And I understand your position. For all practical purposes, I'm an agnostic in terms of my behaviour. My ex and I were married for five years before my beliefs even became a subject of conversation.

The arguments are already there. You're the one who put forward his own argument; the onus is on you to refute those arguments which challenge your premises.

Exactly.

So what is the point of your input in this discussion then? It takes no intelligent process to randomly claim that any axioms are wrong, and nobody can prove you wrong, because... well... they are axioms.

Sure it can. If the premises of the argument are shown to be false, then the argument is worthless for proving anything, even if the conclusion accidentally happened to be true. Now what you appeared to be doing was to say "I don't, myself, agree to these assumptions, but religious people do": but that, itself, was a false assertion.

Premises are not the same as axioms. Axioms/postulates are unshakable and unprovable. Premises can be proven inconsistent with the axioms, but axioms are beyond refutation.

For example, I choose to take (completely independent of the running argument in this thread) that "everything I perceive is a creation of my unconscious mind". You can spend the rest of your life trying to refute it, but you cannot. All you can do is reject it.

Now that we've pacified, I would appreciate if you could contribute to the thread within the established postulates.

Oh and apologies for earlier, but I don't really have any self-control when I get frustrated with people flattering their egos by rejecting some axiom or other, and think they have made some sort of meaningful comment.

That's probably not true, either :D

Alas, sir, you know me too well :p

But experiencing "information about unicorns" is different from experiencing "unicorns". I can show you how to experience "information about mystical experiences" and I can also show you how to experience "mystical experiences", but I can't show you how to experience "unicorns".

Again it is highly presumptive that you can actually show me how to experience anything "mystical". I would contend that all you can do is share information about mystical experience, with which I could proactively seek to attain it, but that is all. Can you provide further evidence that this is indeed more than what I hold to be the highest justifiable belief in this matter?

Can you give me an example of this?

Well let's take some really basic logical propositions:

1) "All cats are mammals". This of necessity implies that "Some cats are mammals". This one is the most basic and obvious logical deduction.

2) "No cats are green" AND "Some spaniels are green". This necessarily implies that "Some spaniels are not cats".

3) "If it rains then I will use my umbrella". This necessarily implies that "If I do not use my umbrella, then it does not rain".

I could give you more, if you wish.

Well, there's two things here: first of all, such a claim would be inconsistent with what we know about optics. Mystical experiences are not inconsistent with scientific data.

Not the point. As I have already said, truth implies consistency, but consistency does not imply truth. Only verification can sort that out.

Secondly, if every drunk told me that, I'd probably guess that I should get drunk and verify it.

Exactly.

Whether or not we should is up to you, as far as I can tell. The truth is that we do, all the time. On a practical level, we should examine our beliefs with as much rigour as possible.

Exactly. That is why I cannot believe something for which I have no sufficient reason to do so.

Sure. And if we do find something that is internally inconsistent, we don't have to bother with the empirical principle and logic, because we know it's wrong.

Yet if it is consistent, it does not necessarily follow that it is true. As above, only observation or sufficient evidence can do that.

If you don't mind, I want to wait for your example before touching on this.

Well, if we believe that there is a cat in my back yard based on the fact that I have a backyard and that the neighbours have cats, then it is not a justifiable belief, because me having a garden and cats being around it is not a sufficient reason to believe that there is a cat in my garden now.

However if I know that only my neighbour's cats can ever be in my garden, and of the three cats she has they are all black, then I have sufficient reason to believe that any cats I will ever find in my garden will be black.

My point was that my beliefs are more than just internally consistent. They are also consistent with my experiences and current scientific knowledge.

And my point is that as long as your beliefs don't necessarily follow from your experiences and current scientific knowledge then they can be true, but equally the can be false, because consistency is necessary for truth, but not sufficient.

I thought it was impossible to prove things true in nature, that you could only prove them false. Karl Popper was the guy's name, I think.

No, I think Popper was concerned with mathematical uncertainty, rather than scientific (though I'm not entirely certain). It is certainly true than all scientific knowledge is inductive, but you have misunderstood the point. The point about scientific knowledge is that the laws it seeks to establish as universals are based on limited knowledge, thus, as per inference, there is always the possibility that the next piece of data will contradict the prediction. But when we talk about particulars (individual objects we refer to, to make a point), then we talk about observation, not science.

That would make sense if some cultures attributed it to the divine and some did not, but that is not the case. People from all cultures attribute it to the divine.

Perhaps because "the divine" is a universal cultural meme. Suppose a mystic from a hypothetical culture which has no notion of the divine. What conclusions would he draw from it?

Again consistency does not imply truth, by necessity.

Well, I don't believe anything with certainty. Like you said, my method of looking at it implies that things can be known in terms of probabilities. Like gravity. I know with a very strong probability that it'll still work the same tomorrow, but I also know that gravity didn't always act this way according to some theories about the big bang. So to accomodate this anomalous data, I have to admit that my knowledge of gravity is uncertain, and that there are more questions to be asked. So you keep asking questions until all the anomalies are resolved. But you don't accept the alternate answers as true right away.

Then you accept that mystical experience is quite possibly not true?

I don't settle for the immediate answer. My explanation can not be scrutinised from a scientific viewpoint, as science makes the assumption that the supernatural does not happen, and is therefore ill-equipped to test for the supernatural. But the idea that it is divine in origin is not beyond scrutiny entirely. We can still attack it with logic. Like, if we can logically show that if it is divine then it has to be associated with Invisible Pink Unicorns (to use an absurd example), and then we show that no IPUs are involved, then we can safely say that it is not divine.

Exactly. But can you say that the divine follows of necessity from anything we know?

And I am skeptical about the claim that such experiences are purely subjective. What I am asking here is if there is any reason to believe that we can't use logic to test claims about the divine like in my example above with the IPUs.

No, of course not, but by exactly the same standard, is there any reason to believe that the divine does exist until such devices to prove it are devised?

No. They aren't the same. There's differences too. But in terms of them providing novelty, both states share this attribute.

I would call this an unsubstantiated claim. As per above, dreams share the same novelty property, as do hallucinations.

They might be, but we have no evidence to believe that.

If they might be (i.e. my statement can be both true or false), then is it a reasonable assumption (to be held as an uncontested truth) that this is not the case?

But saying it is caused by fuzzy language is a positive claim, and I can simply decide to be skeptical about it. I could simply hold the position that is unknown why they all claim to have similar experiences. This would then shift the burden of proof onto you. I don't really care, though, as it my beliefs that I want to rigourously examine. Not yours.

Well if you were truly sceptical about it and accepted the agnostic position, then you would not employ it as a true assumption.

I agree. I just live in the real world as opposed to the one where Occam's razor describes reality. And that's what I like to discuss.

Great. Now that we've dismissed logic, do you have any observations that necessarily imply the existence of that which you support, and can you prove this to me?

Not really. The view is challenged by the new information, not the new view. We create a new view in our head that explains the new info, and then roll it around to see if it fits.

This does not contradict my point that an entire view can be refuted without appeal to a new explanation or further information.

No. I just found it funny to speak of practical considerations when we're having a debate that isn't really relevant to anybody outside of those who care about mystical experiences. Besides, the point is moot as these sort of studies aren't going to be done. And I understand your position. For all practical purposes, I'm an agnostic in terms of my behaviour. My ex and I were married for five years before my beliefs even became a subject of conversation.

Well I think "practical" in the way I have employed it, applies to a whole different category (i.e. the epistemological discourse) than the one you used (i.e. the objective reality), so they had different meanings. As a misnomer, I found this misuse, towards a humoristic conclusion, funny, but inappropriate.

The arguments are already there. You're the one who put forward his own argument; the onus is on you to refute those arguments which challenge your premises.

Not really. I have proposed an argument. I have to support my argument. And that is it. I do not need to refute every existing possible alternative. If any alternative is brought up, and formulated properly, then we give it the same treatment of debate which we have give my proposed argument. You have brought forth no such properly formulated alternative, so I will deal with it in the same spirit in which you have brought it up, and summarily call "bullshit".

Again it is highly presumptive that you can actually show me how to experience anything "mystical". I would contend that all you can do is share information about mystical experience, with which I could proactively seek to attain it, but that is all. Can you provide further evidence that this is indeed more than what I hold to be the highest justifiable belief in this matter?


Well let's take some really basic logical propositions:

1) "All cats are mammals". This of necessity implies that "Some cats are mammals". This one is the most basic and obvious logical deduction.

2) "No cats are green" AND "Some spaniels are green". This necessarily implies that "Some spaniels are not cats".

3) "If it rains then I will use my umbrella". This necessarily implies that "If I do not use my umbrella, then it does not rain".

I could give you more, if you wish.

If experiences that come from our subconscious do not elicit feelings of surprise, and we have a feeling of surprise when we experience something, it would necessarily follow that whatever we experienced comes from another source.

And my point is that as long as your beliefs don't necessarily follow from your experiences and current scientific knowledge then they can be true, but equally the can be false, because consistency is necessary for truth, but not sufficient.

Tell me, does the belief that mystic experiences are solely subjective necessarily follow from experience and current scientific knowledge?

No, I think Popper was concerned with mathematical uncertainty, rather than scientific (though I'm not entirely certain). It is certainly true than all scientific knowledge is inductive, but you have misunderstood the point. The point about scientific knowledge is that the laws it seeks to establish as universals are based on limited knowledge, thus, as per inference, there is always the possibility that the next piece of data will contradict the prediction. But when we talk about particulars (individual objects we refer to, to make a point), then we talk about observation, not science.

I wasn,t discussing particulars.

Perhaps because "the divine" is a universal cultural meme. Suppose a mystic from a hypothetical culture which has no notion of the divine. What conclusions would he draw from it?

They would probably conclude that something like the divine exists.

Then you accept that mystical experience is quite possibly not true?

Of course I accept that possibility. Nothing can be known with certainty, and mysticism has cartain qualities that make it even less verifiable. I just haven't seen anything that disproves it.

Exactly. But can you say that the divine follows of necessity from anything we know?

I don't know. I'm trying to think of something, or a way of showing that a lack of divine necessarily follows from anything we know. I'm coming up empty on both ends.

No, of course not, but by exactly the same standard, is there any reason to believe that the divine does exist until such devices to prove it are devised?

For the mystic, the evidence of his or her own senses would provide reason to believe until it was shown that it could not be the divine.

I would call this an unsubstantiated claim. As per above, dreams share the same novelty property, as do hallucinations.

Give me a break. One of the easiest ways to tell if you're dreaming is if you don't react when something crazy happens.

Type "how can you tel if you,re dreaming" inot google and you come up with this (http://tylerneylon.com/blog/2007/04/how-to-tell-if-youre-dreaming.html) right away:

It seems to me that, while dreaming, things that would normally seem impossible or incredibly strange, seem perfectly normal whilst asleep.

It is a known fact that our reactions to crazy shit are far less extreme in dreams than they are in real life.

If they might be (i.e. my statement can be both true or false), then is it a reasonable assumption (to be held as an uncontested truth) that this is not the case?

Are you really asking me if it is reasonable to assume that all mystics are deluded? No. I do not think it would be reasonable to assume that people can't tell the difference between reality and delusion when there is no evidence to suggest that.

Well if you were truly sceptical about it and accepted the agnostic position, then you would not employ it as a true assumption.

I'm not sure about what you're trying to say. I'm just pointing out that you keep throwing up alternate hypotheses with no backing and whenever I try to point out that they don't work, you just go back to your burden of proof thing. I'm not going to bother trying to refute all the alternate answers you can give. I'll just keep pointing out that you have no evidence for your claims.

Great. Now that we've dismissed logic, do you have any observations that necessarily imply the existence of that which you support, and can you prove this to me?

I haven't dismissed logic. I've just pointed out that Occam's razor does not describe reality.

This does not contradict my point that an entire view can be refuted without appeal to a new explanation or further information.

So? That point is irrelevant. I was just clarifying how you were wrong about me assuming something.

Well I think "practical" in the way I have employed it, applies to a whole different category (i.e. the epistemological discourse) than the one you used (i.e. the objective reality), so they had different meanings. As a misnomer, I found this misuse, towards a humoristic conclusion, funny, but inappropriate.

And I find your pedantic approach to language funny, and I don't care about how appropriate it is.

Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If a Geiger counter detects radiation then the flask is shattered, releasing the poison which kills the cat. Quantum mechanics suggests that after a while the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not a mixture of alive and dead.

So what's the deal with existing and not existing? Easier than being dead and alive. And once we see (or don't see) he then there is a state.

I am by the way an atheist (with a small a--I don't attend meetings) and per George Bush senior, I can not be consdiered a patriot or a citizen of the country in which I was born. The United States of America.

If experiences that come from our subconscious do not elicit feelings of surprise, and we have a feeling of surprise when we experience something, it would necessarily follow that whatever we experienced comes from another source.

If. But if they do, like... uhm... dreams :wink:

Tell me, does the belief that mystic experiences are solely subjective necessarily follow from experience and current scientific knowledge?

From any thing that is an experience or a concept we are familiar with, it follows necessarily that it is subjective. If it follows necessarily from other knowledge, and postulates, that this experience or concept is informed by an exterior objective source, then it can be said to be an objective fact (though strictly speaking it is "the subjective manifestation of an objective reality"). If there is no sufficient evidence that this is the case, all that can be said with certainty about the experience or concept is that it is subjective. It may or may not be also derived from an objective source, but we cannot claim that to be true, nor can we assume it in another debate.

I wasn,t discussing particulars.

You were implying that no knowledge can be certain, so my rigour in logic was unsustainable. Science was a poor example to offer, because science is limited to degree of probability by its very definition, whereas we can and do have knowledge (given the assumptions regarding the existence of objective reality and the role of the senses in accessing it) about specific things, like particulars.

They would probably conclude that something like the divine exists.

Probably but not necessarily. It does not therefore follow that the only explanation can be the divine.

Of course I accept that possibility. Nothing can be known with certainty, and mysticism has cartain qualities that make it even less verifiable. I just haven't seen anything that disproves it.

Have you seen evidence that supports it, beyond reasonable doubt?

I don't know. I'm trying to think of something, or a way of showing that a lack of divine necessarily follows from anything we know. I'm coming up empty on both ends.

Based on that, you can justify strict agnosticism and nothing more. As I have said, as per the empirical principle, something we conceive of is by default fiction, until we observe it or we find that it follows by necessity from something else we observe - regardless of whether or not it is true, the best you can do is to say "I don't know", the reasonable conclusion for all practical considerations "it is false", and this can only change when it can be proven "true".

For the mystic, the evidence of his or her own senses would provide reason to believe until it was shown that it could not be the divine.

Reason to believe yes, but not sufficient reason.

Give me a break. One of the easiest ways to tell if you're dreaming is if you don't react when something crazy happens.

So you've never woken up from a dream sweaty and with your heart racing? Have you never experienced fear and terror in dreams?

Type "how can you tel if you,re dreaming" inot google and you come up with this (http://tylerneylon.com/blog/2007/04/how-to-tell-if-youre-dreaming.html) right away:

Uhm, no offence to people named "Tyler" but any dork with a goofy name can write a blog. It's hardly an authoritative source.

It is a known fact that our reactions to crazy shit are far less extreme in dreams than they are in real life.

My personal experience would not corroborate this "known fact", but it might be just my tendency to have horror film like dreams.

Are you really asking me if it is reasonable to assume that all mystics are deluded? No. I do not think it would be reasonable to assume that people can't tell the difference between reality and delusion when there is no evidence to suggest that.

Nor would it be reasonable to assume that something you cannot by definition observe yourself, is true, because any number of people say so, and particularly not to assume that their conclusions about this which cannot be observed are logical, informed, and accurate.

I'm not sure about what you're trying to say. I'm just pointing out that you keep throwing up alternate hypotheses with no backing and whenever I try to point out that they don't work, you just go back to your burden of proof thing. I'm not going to bother trying to refute all the alternate answers you can give. I'll just keep pointing out that you have no evidence for your claims.

Then you have completely missed the point of my examples. My examples simply were not intended to argue for a distinct interpretation. They were there to show you that from your axioms, with your methods of reasoning I can reach different and contradictory explanations from your own. I do not endorse any of the examples I have proposed as true, but what my point is that you can draw these conclusions from the same logic that you have drawn yours. What does that tell you? If it doesn't tell you anything , I'll spell it out: "none of the conclusions you have reached and to which I have offered contradictory conclusions following the same set of rules, necessarily follows from your postulates, premises and assumptions". That's what my examples illustrate - alternative plausible conclusion. I know I haven't offered any supporting evidence, nor do I intend to, because yours aren't supported by evidence either. The point is, your conclusions do not follow by necessity from the premises (et al), just like mine don't, and that's why we could articulate them both, and have them both equally plausible.

I haven't dismissed logic. I've just pointed out that Occam's razor does not describe reality.

Neither does logic. Occam's razor is an integral part of the tool of logic - both are useful in interpreting reality, but neither does describe it. That is why I keep saying again and again that all logic alone tells us nothing, without observation to corroborate it.

So? That point is irrelevant. I was just clarifying how you were wrong about me assuming something.

Clearly I wasn't. You seem to have a propensity for acknowledging likely conclusions even when you concede that the strictest certainty we can articulate is agnosticism, on that particular matter.

All you have managed to show so far is that the divine is a plausible explanation for mystical experience, and even after you've conceded that we cannot know with certainty, you still support it as truth.

My point is that I can attack this conception of yours as unfounded even if I do not find further evidence to infirm it, or propose an alternative explanation, for the simple fact that this explanation does not necessarily follow from anything we know.

And I find your pedantic approach to language funny, and I don't care about how appropriate it is.

Mate, arguing philosophy with improperly defined words, is like using a sponge dildo :p

Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If a Geiger counter detects radiation then the flask is shattered, releasing the poison which kills the cat. Quantum mechanics suggests that after a while the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not a mixture of alive and dead.

I am familiar with this. I find quantum mechanics an uneding source of entertainment :p

So what's the deal with existing and not existing? Easier than being dead and alive. And once we see (or don't see) he then there is a state.

I would personally contend that the cat is indeed both dead and alive, simultaneous, but not in the same quantum space. When we observe the cat she is not in just one state - she is still in both, but we can only see the state she is in, in the one of the two quantum spaces in which we also find ourselves. The implication, of course, would be that we as an entity, would also exist in separate versions in different quantum spaces, and extrapolating, in different parallel universes.

I am by the way an atheist (with a small a--I don't attend meetings) and per George Bush senior, I can not be consdiered a patriot or a citizen of the country in which I was born. The United States of America.

No, my friend, you since you at the same time exist, and do not exist, you are at the same time an American and not an American ;)

PS: This little exercise in wild speculation really does deserve its own thread. Go for it.

I haven't dismissed logic. I've just pointed out that Occam's razor does not describe reality.
Neither does logic. Occam's razor is an integral part of the tool of logic...
*Spasm*

Sorry, whenever that is brought up, I always have to remind people of one simple fact: Occam's Razor has nothing to do with the logical validity of a given model, nor is it a part of logic. It is a protocol designed for compact and efficient model building. It should (if it is to be verifiably correct) state that it is a sound strategy when establishing comprehensible paradigms to use the fewest possible number of agents that defies contradiction, because doing so makes the model you have easier to falsify given new information. This is not a logical axiom, it is not a necessary principle, it does not say anything about the validity of models that are constructed under its guidance, but it is a valid proposition.

Now, please continue.

If. But if they do, like... uhm... dreams :wink:

This is an unsubstantiated claim.

From any thing that is an experience or a concept we are familiar with, it follows necessarily that it is subjective. If it follows necessarily from other knowledge, and postulates, that this experience or concept is informed by an exterior objective source, then it can be said to be an objective fact (though strictly speaking it is "the subjective manifestation of an objective reality"). If there is no sufficient evidence that this is the case, all that can be said with certainty about the experience or concept is that it is subjective. It may or may not be also derived from an objective source, but we cannot claim that to be true, nor can we assume it in another debate.


So that's a 'no'.

You were implying that no knowledge can be certain, so my rigour in logic was unsustainable. Science was a poor example to offer, because science is limited to degree of probability by its very definition, whereas we can and do have knowledge (given the assumptions regarding the existence of objective reality and the role of the senses in accessing it) about specific things, like particulars.

No. I was not implying that no knowledge can be certain.

Probably but not necessarily. It does not therefore follow that the only explanation can be the divine.

Didn't say it had to be. I was merely claiming that we can't dismiss it as cultural.

Have you seen evidence that supports it, beyond reasonable doubt?

What is 'it'? Mysticism?

Based on that, you can justify strict agnosticism and nothing more. As I have said, as per the empirical principle, something we conceive of is by default fiction, until we observe it or we find that it follows by necessity from something else we observe - regardless of whether or not it is true, the best you can do is to say "I don't know", the reasonable conclusion for all practical considerations "it is false", and this can only change when it can be proven "true".

But a mystical experience is not something you conceive of. It is something you experience. It is something that the mystic observes.

Reason to believe yes, but not sufficient reason.

Is there sufficient reason to doubt your own senses?

So you've never woken up from a dream sweaty and with your heart racing? Have you never experienced fear and terror in dreams?

I have experienced terror, but not surprise. When I'm being chased and all of a sudden I can barely move while that thing is catching up, I don't feel any surprise at the fact that I can't run and that something's chasing me.

Uhm, no offence to people named "Tyler" but any dork with a goofy name can write a blog. It's hardly an authoritative source.

I have an idea. Why don't you go find me an example of somebody experiencing surprise in a dream in the same way that people experience it in real life. Because I'm tired of trying to prove an absence.

My personal experience would not corroborate this "known fact", but it might be just my tendency to have horror film like dreams.

Terror is not surprise.

Nor would it be reasonable to assume that something you cannot by definition observe yourself, is true, because any number of people say so, and particularly not to assume that their conclusions about this which cannot be observed are logical, informed, and accurate.

Whatever. As long as you concede that your point about them being deluded is wrong.

Then you have completely missed the point of my examples. My examples simply were not intended to argue for a distinct interpretation. They were there to show you that from your axioms, with your methods of reasoning I can reach different and contradictory explanations from your own. I do not endorse any of the examples I have proposed as true, but what my point is that you can draw these conclusions from the same logic that you have drawn yours. What does that tell you? If it doesn't tell you anything , I'll spell it out: "none of the conclusions you have reached and to which I have offered contradictory conclusions following the same set of rules, necessarily follows from your postulates, premises and assumptions". That's what my examples illustrate - alternative plausible conclusion. I know I haven't offered any supporting evidence, nor do I intend to, because yours aren't supported by evidence either. The point is, your conclusions do not follow by necessity from the premises (et al), just like mine don't, and that's why we could articulate them both, and have them both equally plausible.

Are you saying that there can be alternate explanations for a given thing? Wow! Crazy! And it only took you several pages worth of long-winded posts to do it. Great! But let's not bother comparing the different explanations. That would be silly.

Clearly I wasn't. You seem to have a propensity for acknowledging likely conclusions even when you concede that the strictest certainty we can articulate is agnosticism, on that particular matter.

All you have managed to show so far is that the divine is a plausible explanation for mystical experience, and even after you've conceded that we cannot know with certainty, you still support it as truth.

My point is that I can attack this conception of yours as unfounded even if I do not find further evidence to infirm it, or propose an alternative explanation, for the simple fact that this explanation does not necessarily follow from anything we know.

And I can turn around and point out that all your alternative hypotheses suffer from the same problem: they don't necessarily follow. And they also don't explain why everybody senses it as the divine. My explanation does explain that, even if it doesn't necessarily follow, just like all the alternate hypotheses that you came up with.

3) There is no sufficient proof that God exists, and there is no sufficient proof that God does not exist. (I think all of us agree on this point... otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate)


To change the conversation, i have a fundamental problem with this, i believe it was, premise.

There are many arguments for the existence of God, and the one that I believe most fully gives great credence to the idea of a God is the cosmological argument, which I am sure many people have heard before.

Now, the first general premise of this argument is that the universe seems to be designed. This seems apparent to me. All anyone has to do is have even a minor understanding of how the human body works. The incredible intricacies that allow for the thoughts and actions we express and perform every days is mindboggling. And how much greater is the incredible precision with which our universe is organized, that if our earth were moved merely a thousandth of a millimeter away from the sun, it would not be suitable for life. The philosopher Francois-Marie Voltaire puts it incredibly simply: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great architect, then I consent to be called a fool."

Of course, you must accept the assumption that the existence of something, does indeed prove that it has a creator. Basic principles of causality say that something never sprang from nothing. But, in that case, what created God?

We have to assume a definition of God that does not limit him to the necessarily human ideas of causality. Because God is the creator of the first thing to exist (the universe) he is not bound by the notions of causality.

This is an unsubstantiated claim.

Yours isn't particularly substantiated either, I'm afraid.

So that's a 'no'.

Now you are being dense on purpose.

It's like this: 1+2=3.

That an experience is subjective is 1 and is a given.

Sufficient proof for 1 having an objective source is 2.

That an experience is acknowledged to represent objective fact is 3.

No proof means no 2, and therefore the end result is 1, not 3.

No. I was not implying that no knowledge can be certain.

Then why did you bring that up?

Didn't say it had to be. I was merely claiming that we can't dismiss it as cultural.

If it is neither, what alternative would you suggest?

What is 'it'? Mysticism?

"It" is your claim that mystical experience is divinely inspired - i.e. the subject of the discussion.

But a mystical experience is not something you conceive of. It is something you experience. It is something that the mystic observes.

You can conceive of an experience. You can self induce experiences, and then observe what happens. Your point is irrelevant.

Is there sufficient reason to doubt your own senses?

You have already conceded that we cannot consider mystical experience at the same level with our own senses, so we are not doubting our senses.

I have experienced terror, but not surprise. When I'm being chased and all of a sudden I can barely move while that thing is catching up, I don't feel any surprise at the fact that I can't run and that something's chasing me.

Well that's just you. You don't know about other people.

I have an idea. Why don't you go find me an example of somebody experiencing surprise in a dream in the same way that people experience it in real life. Because I'm tired of trying to prove an absence.

Me :)

([/end thread] If you can refute this claim, you have implicitly refuted your own support of mystics' claims, as you have refuted a subjective experience you have no direct knowledge of, and if you cannot you must concede that I should be believed, even though you can see that I have had every reason to lie on this occasion)

Terror is not surprise.

I didn't imply it was.

Whatever. As long as you concede that your point about them being deluded is wrong.

But you have already conceded it is an actual possibility.

Are you saying that there can be alternate explanations for a given thing? Wow! Crazy! And it only took you several pages worth of long-winded posts to do it. Great! But let's not bother comparing the different explanations. That would be silly.

As I have pointed out when I was describing your method of thinking, you can produce a near infinity of alternative, consistent explanations of the same thing, each with varying probabilities of being right. Whereas my method accepts only one conclusion that is certainly right.

And I can turn around and point out that all your alternative hypotheses suffer from the same problem: they don't necessarily follow. And they also don't explain why everybody senses it as the divine. My explanation does explain that, even if it doesn't necessarily follow, just like all the alternate hypotheses that you came up with.

They do in fact explain why people sense the divine, as delusion, madness, insanity, mental archetypes (Jung), cerebral chemical imbalance etc. Your explanation has absolutely nothing above any of the alternatives I have proposed.

If you reject my hypotheses, you would be inconsistent to maintain yours.

Gunst;14023395']To change the conversation, i have a fundamental problem with this, i believe it was, premise.

Well let us examine...

There are many arguments for the existence of God, and the one that I believe most fully gives great credence to the idea of a God is the cosmological argument, which I am sure many people have heard before.

Far too many times. It's nice and seductive but wrong.

Now, the first general premise of this argument is that the universe seems to be designed. This seems apparent to me.

Alas, this be the teleological argument, not the cosmological argument.

All anyone has to do is have even a minor understanding of how the human body works. The incredible intricacies that allow for the thoughts and actions we express and perform every days is mindboggling. And how much greater is the incredible precision with which our universe is organized, that if our earth were moved merely a thousandth of a millimeter away from the sun, it would not be suitable for life.

Probability does not apply to past events. You cannot conclude from the fact that what is, was unlikely to happen, that it did not happen.

The philosopher Francois-Marie Voltaire puts it incredibly simply: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great architect, then I consent to be called a fool."

I would call Voltaire a fool, then :p

Of course, you must accept the assumption that the existence of something, does indeed prove that it has a creator. Basic principles of causality say that something never sprang from nothing. But, in that case, what created God?

On the one hand. On the other, there is no reason to assume that everything was actually created to being with, and not contend that it was always there.

We have to assume a definition of God that does not limit him to the necessarily human ideas of causality. Because God is the creator of the first thing to exist (the universe) he is not bound by the notions of causality.

Argument from ignorance (i.e. a logical fallacy).

3) There is no sufficient proof that God exists, and there is no sufficient proof that God does not exist. (I think all of us agree on this point... otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate)

I don't think all of us agree on this point. In fact, our disagreement is probably a better explanation for debate than our agreement.

Another discussion about God thread. Oh boy......

How many more God threads? Honestly?

It depends on whether the existence is infinite or not...if it is then we will be infinitely discussing god which is silly because god will of course exist (an infinite existence requires the existence of god, otherwise it would not be infinite, would it?)...on the other hand if existence is finite then we will only discuss god so long before coming to the conclusion that there is no god since without an infinite existence god can not exist...

...unless he decides to anyways, of course (he is god after all).

Hrrrrrm, that wasn't helpful at all was it? Sorry, how about this -- it is silly to discuss the nature or existence of a perfect being since as imperfect beings we are incapable of knowing or understanding said deity. Sorry, that's the breaks folks.

I love theology! :D

It depends on whether the existence is infinite or not...if it is then we will be infinitely discussing god which is silly because god will of course exist (an infinite existence requires the existence of god, otherwise it would not be infinite, would it?)...on the other hand if existence is finite then we will only discuss god so long before coming to the conclusion that there is no god since without an infinite existence god can not exist...

...unless he decides to anyways, of course (he is god after all).

Hrrrrrm, that wasn't helpful at all was it? Sorry, how about this -- it is silly to discuss the nature or existence of a perfect being since as imperfect beings we are incapable of knowing or understanding said deity. Sorry, that's the breaks folks.

I love theology! :D

The fact that we are imperfect beings does not necessitate that we cannot apprehend, or even prove the existence of a perfect being, only that we cannot fully comprehend His nature. The proof of His existence, and certain aspects of His nature, might very well be within the realm of apprehendability by imperfect creatures. Hence, philosophy of religion and theology.

Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If a Geiger counter detects radiation then the flask is shattered, releasing the poison which kills the cat. Quantum mechanics suggests that after a while the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not a mixture of alive and dead.

The thing is, we never look inside the box. That's also part of the scenario.

So what's the deal with existing and not existing? Easier than being dead and alive. And once we see (or don't see) he then there is a state.

I am by the way an atheist (with a small a--I don't attend meetings) and per George Bush senior, I can not be consdiered a patriot or a citizen of the country in which I was born. The United States of America.

The deal, marvelous as it is, with existing and not existing is that there is no explanation possible for "existing or not existing".

But a mystical experience is not something you conceive of. It is something you experience.

If it's truly a mystical experience there can be no difference, as it removes the barrier that separates "subjective" from "objective", "in here" from "out there".

How many more God threads? Honestly?

Seven.

I think I've boiled down your argument to -

Premise: God does not exist
Conclusion: God does not exist

For me, belief (in God) is the idea that parts of reality exist beyond the ways in which we can perceive it.

I can see why no one on the other forum really engaged in this debate. And we've already seen many people complain about the premise on this forum as well. It vaguely reminds me of the Henry Ford quote "The customer can have [the Model T in] any color he wants so long as it's black" - that you're not willing to debate on the theists terms and nor they on yours.

Gunst;14023395']All anyone has to do is have even a minor understanding of how the human body works. The incredible intricacies that allow for the thoughts and actions we express and perform every days is mindboggling.

You're nearly 150 years behind the times my friend: Evolution does an excellent job of explaining the complexity of life and does so without appealing to a more complex starting point.

Gunst;14023395']And how much greater is the incredible precision with which our universe is organized, that if our earth were moved merely a thousandth of a millimeter away from the sun, it would not be suitable for life.

May I ask where you got this from? I only ask because whoever told you this is either stupid, ignorant or a liar. The Earth's orbit is elliptical so our distance from the Sun fluctuates significantly over the course of the year, this is Kepler's first law of planetary motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#First_law).

Also, by your logic I should be burnt to a crisp the moment I climbed a hill, since even the smallest hill is taller than 'a thousandth of a millimeter'. ;)

Gunst;14023395']The philosopher Francois-Marie Voltaire puts it incredibly simply: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great architect, then I consent to be called a fool."

Voltaire was a smart guy for his time, but he's been left behind by scientific progress. Philosophical progress too actually, since David Hume annhialated the Teleological argument in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Gunst;14023395']Of course, you must accept the assumption that the existence of something, does indeed prove that it has a creator.

No, I don't see why I must accept that.

Gunst;14023395']Basic principles of causality say that something never sprang from nothing.

Read Hume's Dialogues, he cleared up all of these arguments centuries ago.

For starters, inductive arguments (i.e. "X has always followed Y in my experience, therefore X must always follow Y") can never be more than a probable inference. We don't know it to be a universal law.

Secondly, you're extrapolating from the behaviour of parts within a thing (in this case the universe) to the behaviour of the whole of the thing. It's rather like saying "The individual atoms which constitute a bicycle can't be blue, therefore a bicycle can't be blue". It's not logically justified.

Besides, even if I accepted your argument it wouldn't indicate the existence of a being with the attributes traditionally attributed to God: there's no need for it to be sentient for example, as animals like spiders or beavers can create structures without recourse to intelligence.

Gunst;14023395']But, in that case, what created God?

We have to assume a definition of God that does not limit him to the necessarily human ideas of causality. Because God is the creator of the first thing to exist (the universe) he is not bound by the notions of causality.

This is called special pleading.

Yours isn't particularly substantiated either, I'm afraid.

Maybe. But I'm not pretending that I have all the answers, or that the ones I do have are the only possible correct ones.

Now you are being dense on purpose.

It's like this: 1+2=3.

That an experience is subjective is 1 and is a given.

Sufficient proof for 1 having an objective source is 2.

That an experience is acknowledged to represent objective fact is 3.

No proof means no 2, and therefore the end result is 1, not 3.

Are you explaining how the claim that these experiences are solely subjective is not a necessary conclusion?

Then why did you bring that up?

I was just bringing it up because we were discussing truth in nature. I was pointing out that in science, you can't prove things true, only false. Why I was doing that, I don't remember.

If it is neither, what alternative would you suggest?

I was hoping you would suggest one. I thought I would defend the 'divinely inspired idea' and you would prove me wrong.

"It" is your claim that mystical experience is divinely inspired - i.e. the subject of the discussion.

Other than the fact that those who experience it, sense it as the divine? And the fact that this claim seems to be consistent with my experiences, current scientific theory, etc.

You can conceive of an experience. You can self induce experiences, and then observe what happens. Your point is irrelevant.

But the conception of the experience is different than the experience itself. You seem to be saying tha the idea of a mystical experience is the same as a mystical experience, which is like saying that thinking about sex can get you pregnant.

You have already conceded that we cannot consider mystical experience at the same level with our own senses, so we are not doubting our senses.

I have conceded that it is not the same as our senses which describe to us the physical reality which we can share. That is not the same as doubting our senses. I don't share your sense of balance, or your kinaesthetic sense either.

Well that's just you. You don't know about other people.

Which is why I wonder how people can make claims like: mystical experiences are just a product of your own brain.

Me :)

([/end thread] If you can refute this claim, you have implicitly refuted your own support of mystics' claims, as you have refuted a subjective experience you have no direct knowledge of, and if you cannot you must concede that I should be believed, even though you can see that I have had every reason to lie on this occasion)

Which claim am I supposed to refute? I asked you to provide me an example of someone feeling surprised during a dream or hallucination. In the last fifteen years or so, I 've asked a lot of people, and most people don't feel surprise in their dreams when confronted with what is obviously impossible. if you have any new data, I'd like to see it.

But you have already conceded it is an actual possibility.

Anything's possible. This is just highly unlikely. Even more unlikely than divine inspiration.

As I have pointed out when I was describing your method of thinking, you can produce a near infinity of alternative, consistent explanations of the same thing, each with varying probabilities of being right. Whereas my method accepts only one conclusion that is certainly right.

Is your OP an example of that?

They do in fact explain why people sense the divine, as delusion, madness, insanity, mental archetypes (Jung), cerebral chemical imbalance etc. Your explanation has absolutely nothing above any of the alternatives I have proposed.

They provide partial explanations based on unjustified beliefs. How do you explain how some mystics seem to have frequent revelations, yet do not exhibit any of the other symptoms that would be associated with delusion, madness, insanity, cerebral chemical imbalance etc.

If you reject my hypotheses, you would be inconsistent to maintain yours.

Maybe. What's your claim?

Well you've been gone a long while :)

Anyway, I can't really remember what we were arguing about, and I can't be asked to trough through 5 pages of essays but to pick up on:

Which claim am I supposed to refute? I asked you to provide me an example of someone feeling surprised during a dream or hallucination. In the last fifteen years or so, I 've asked a lot of people, and most people don't feel surprise in their dreams when confronted with what is obviously impossible. if you have any new data, I'd like to see it.

You asked if I knew anyone who was surprised in their dreams.

I said "me".

Now I have every reason to lie. But if we apply the same standard of inquiry to my claim as you apply to mystics, then you would either have to refute me, or to accept what I say as truth. The subjectivity of my dreams, however, is exactly equivalent to the subjectivity of the mystics' experiences, as I have said that I do find surprise in dreams.

If you manage to refute any part of my claim, in spite of it being beyond your powers of observation (because it is in my sphere of experience), then by the same argument you would refute mystics' claims, and thus undermine your entire argument.

If you, on the other hand, accept what I say as truth, you have no knowledge of what is actually the case - just a random, unsubstantiated belief, based on whatever I fancy to say.

Your position on mystics will have to reflect the treatment you give my claim. At this point, both accounts refute your position, in regards to knowledge.

Yet, it is obvious that I could be lying, so the above two options, are indeed a case of "limited options" (a fallacy, and a deviation of the "law of the excluded middle") - a standard you have applied to your treatment of the mystics. Now, to be consistent, if I have lied, then the mystics have also lied. Thus undermining your whole argument, yet again.

Hence, /thread.

snip

Why I think that just like Christians, Muslims, whatever, you should keep your shitty opinions about god/gods/whatever to yourself:

They're annoying.