Thursday, October 3, 2013

More of what atheist do when It's obvious they can't beat a God argument

 Over the last month I've been putting up God arguemnts every day or so and arguing for them. I put up five. They were answered badly. As usual the atheist just let them drift off then pretend like they really kicked ass on them. This time I made a post looking back over them and arguing that they didn't answer them:

 This is the old routine. It's what atheist count on. the thread goes away and they pretend it never happened. I just got through discussing a bunch of arguemnts and none of them were disproved and they each one accomplished two things:

(1) demonstrated that there's valid rational reasons to believe

(2) they correlate with the atheist retrenchment into theory and hypothetical data rather than empirical data.

the atheist says "we may not have empirical data for multiverses but the mathematical theories make up for that." But we can match that with the logic of God arguments. Half my arguments are empirical.

here are the arguments the one pointed needed to beat each one.

(1) God is the basis of reality: the idealist argument (aka Berkeley arguemnt)

*To beat this argument one would have to be able to prove that:

(a) no mind behind universe--or that it's not needed

(b) that mental medium for reality is merely surface level

(c) show how time could emerge from non time without rules change.

(2) empirical miracles

*disprove Lourdes and Casdrough miracles

(3) epistemic judgement argument

*Disprove the criteria of epistemic judgement and no one came close

(4) God on the Brain

*have to prove that innate ideas are possible, nowhere near close

(5) primary Cosmological Status

*have to prove what caused BB expansion-- show that it's possible for naturalistic means to have infinite causal regression.

the upshot is we have a huge number of reason to believe in God and no logical basis for the claims that there are no reasons.

they went nuts on this. It's apparent that it does stick in their crows that they can't answer the arguments.


 Your manner (and not your arguments) causes your posts to be ignored, Metacrock.

 We had this really stupid exchange where they were saying my ideas are incomprehensible. No one can understand them. Then I said what are all those response about why do you try arguing with the arguemnts? HRG tried to argue I said "wow that's really amazing becuase it sounds just like you know what I'm saying." I made fun of America saying "what? I can't understand you. your words are incomprehensible." at one point he says "it's because you are so rude." I said how do you know that if what I say is incomprehensible? When he tried ot respond I said "what? is Timmy hurt? find Timmy, take us to Timmy."

We got other responses.

Originally Posted by Darth Pringle View Post
 this is about the epistemic judgement argment
Meta, that is a personal attack on frikki (ad hominem) with this particular type being a motive fallacy.

I don't think anyone who refuses to read the evidence can claim they care about truth. Every atheist here has refused to read the evince on several issues. With Tillich I put the paper I wrote on the board no one would read it. then 5 years no one has read a single study of the 200. So when you guys do that I'll admit you might care for truth.

Darth P.

Would they? So why is no-one holding a Nobel Prize for having proved God from these studies?
How many times have I answered that? about every single time you have intoned that mantra. yet I know you can't remember even a sentence of my answer.

The answer is that they studies don't claim to prove the existence of God, that's not what they are about. As Ralph Hood says he considers that to be beyond the domain of science. No reaosn why I can't extrapolate form what the studies show to the understanding of God's existence based upon what the data suggests. It's stupid to think they would give a Nobel prize for proving the existence of God.

Darth P

It is simply factually incorrect to say that anyone would find these compelling.

He means the 200 studies.
that's absolute nonsense and you know it. 200 studies. come off it1 that's a huge body of work over 50 years! totally absurd. it only took 3 studies to get air bags approved.

Darth p
And that's an unsupported appeal to popularity (when did more people believing something mean that what they believe is more likely to be true?)

wrong-0 old sport! see you don't even understand the basic concept of the arrangement how can you claim you answered it. O yea you are so deeply concerned about truth you can't even follow what the argument says!

it doesn't say the criteria is what the majority think it' says this is THE WAY WE AS A SPECIES UNDERSTAND REALITY. It's universal.

no one thinks that "did you see that" is just an appeal to popularity.

Darth P

And we don't when some experiences that are known to be inaccurate fit the same criteria. 
that's a meaningless statement. the whole concept is that we don't have the facts behind the appearance we have to make a judgement. We all use the same criteria to make the judgment. you can't prove we don't. I have proved we do.

 Originally Posted by Deist View Post
These ALLEGED 200 were reviewed by someone a year or so back, and found to be severely lacking, and NOT saying that there was a god behind the self reported experiences of the humans.

none of them were ever reviewed by anyone. that girl claimed to have read one but when I forced her to give me the URL turns out it was the article by the auhro not the study I have pointed this out over and over again. it was the article not the study.she didn't read the study. I know form the URL. no methodology no abstract, no findings.

I know the URL she got it form me. Backup bought a study that examined a study that was on the 200 both of those supported the M scale. Royce read Spanos and Moreti but he didn't understand it because he trued to use it against Hood and it says point blank "we agree with Hood's findings."

you have demonstrated over again that you don't have the facts.

At best, they showed again what I've been saying all along, which is that these humans BELIEVED that "something" was behind their SELF REPORTED and ALLEGED experiences and they call that something "god" in the language of their country. It's almost like Meta thinks someone in Africa or Australia never heard of God and since these ANONYMOUS individuals (who can't be cross examined) all report similar experiences and they contend they came from"god" that God is universal, and they, therefore have to right. 
since you have not read even one you don't know. that's not what they say. not one of them says that. they all say in the findings that RE is good> isn't not mental illness 'ts not stupid it is soemthing real. They show regular constant and shared just like my criteria and they show good effects, which fits my argument.


For all we know, the SELF REPORTED "god" could be a three headed Leprechaun for some but they contend their ALLEGED experience came from whatever concept they have of god. IOW, they had a BELIEF.
that's unimportant. if you want to think God a 3 headed leprechaun so what? how dose that free you from his judgment? you are speaking as though God is real not just an idea in the mind I assume you believe that he does exist you just hate him right?


Thus, these statements by unknown people who we cannot now question, are taken as gospel.

This is really crazy. he thinks at on all the corroborating validation studies where they did the study over again in another country, India, Japan, Iran, Sweden, USA, UK, that all these third world peasants who have never heard of W.T. Stace could lie their way to validating Stace's theory. Or that with 32 questions  in six different cultures and languages they would just accidentally all luck out and validate the theory by accident. That means people who knew nothing about Stace would have to lie about their experiences (for no reason) in just teh same way to produce the same results in six different countries. Think about Darth P above who said it's not impressive!

what unknown people? this is make no sense at all. I've demonstrated statically now there no way they could lie their way to validating Stace. you remember? I did my own study and had you truly to lie your way to validating something and you couldn't. somehow you conveniently forgot that.

Do you mean the respondents are unknown why would you think that? why do we need to know them as long as the researchers know. You have no evidence that the researchers don't know them.


Even assuming they experienced "god", it was a generic feeling of wellness and nirvana and oneness. An airy fairy feeling that they BELIEVE cam from their particular god concept and in no way alludes to any ridiculous bible type god. 
no it was not wellness and nirvana even if it was that would still serve the argument.

 So pathetic. stupid as mud. he doesn't understand the most basic issues about belief in God. He's so intimated and in hate with the Bible that's all he can think about. Mystical experience is more than just loony tune niceness feelings. the results include getting offer heroin and alcohol and remission form cancer and getting your life on track, self actualization and they have to reduce it to "getting hjappy" so they can put it down. that's such a vast commitment to truth. they are so dedicated to finding that they have to lie and distort the data in order to cover up the fact that they lost.


JBsptfn said...

Quote"For all we know, the SELF REPORTED "god" could be a three headed Leprechaun for some but they contend their ALLEGED experience came from whatever concept they have of god. IOW, they had a BELIEF."Quote

Why do Atheists always come back to silly caricatures when they argue against God by referring to leprechauns and spaghetti monsters? It's really ignorant.

Metacrock said...

I really rather see that as proof that they don't understand concepts.

JBsptfn said...

That's a good point.

Also, they seem to be arguing from a position that they assume is right, and that all the evidence is in complete agreement with, even though it's not.

That is why they some of them are so arrogant when they talk about God.